APD Guidebook Changes/Suggestions

[...]

Introduction:

While reading through the guidebook before attempting to become mock-certified I came to notice many inconsistencies or errors. I thought I would take it upon myself to provide a write up of any inconsistencies and errors I noticed while also providing solutions for those inconsistencies. In no way is this to expose or harass any guidebook curators. Rather this is an attempt to unify the guidebook after years of development. This post will be broken up into two categories: Errors and Inconsistencies. Errors are things that are accidentally incorrect, such as sentences that are missing words, missing charges in the ticket guide, etc.. Inconsistencies are simply things that I find to go against the format or wording in previous sections or just simply don't make sense. The order of these items will be random.

Errors:

1. "Bounty Hunter Execution" charge lacking from the Ticket Guide.

I find that this charge does come up fairly often and I treat it based on my understanding of what it stems from. I believe that it is automatically given to a player who kills a player that they had restrained (correct me if I'm wrong). I think the inclusion of this charge would help clear up any confusion with new and veteran officers while also providing a resource for civilians to understand where the charge stems from.

2. The description of the "Possession of Cocaine" charge in the Ticket Guide.

It appears that this description is from the good old days of Tanoa Life. I suggest removing the description or possibly using #3 in the Inconsistencies section.

Inconsistencies:

1. How medics are to be treated when they become "an enemy of the state" from aiding rebels.

In the processing section of the guidebook there is a section called "Medics" and in it it describes the protocol for dealing with medics who are assisting rebels. I find the second option, which is to send the medic to jail, unnecessary. Why would it be necessary to send a medic to jail when in order to do that you have to restrain them and restraining them stops them from continuing to aid rebels. I propose that such an option is either removed or elaborated on so that it makes sense.

2. The revocation of a Bounty Hunter license due to the suspect having a charge of "Bounty Hunter Execution".

I find this only confusing due to the fact that the charge of "Bounty Hunter Execution" is not included in the guidebook. Refer to #1 in the Errors section for my understanding of the charge. Most of the time when I am processing a player with this charge they have came to me wanting to find out how they managed to get a $7,500 charge. Rarely if ever have I taken someone's license away from such a charge due to the genuine confusion. However, on the off chance I do catch someone maliciously getting this charge, I do take away their license. I feel that either the charge needs to be elaborated on or that the revocation of a citizen's Bounty Hunter license should be limited to the first option. Another option is that the charge of "Abuse of a Bounty Hunter Weapon" could be expanded to also qualify for the revocation of a Bounty Hunter license.

3. The descriptions of the various "Possession" charges.

The descriptions of these charges differ between two uses. One use is that they go on the elaborate on what the charge completely entails. The other use being to include additional notes on the charges. I propose that all of these charges' descriptions are changed to the first use. For example, the "Possession of Meth" charge's description could be "Applied to a suspect in possession of Ephedra, Meth Cocktail, Crystal Meth, or Crank.". In short, I advise that all the possession charges' descriptions are changed to be in the format of the "Possession of Explosives" charge (the most recent possession charge that was revised). 

TL;DR Some nerd nitpicking the APD guidebook because he's a loser.

If there are any errors in this suggestion, please let me know in a constructive manner. This list is a work in progress.

@Clint Beastwood @DarkKnight @The Monopoly Man

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by Maric

[Nicolas March]

Bounty hunter excution is broken, only get it when someone in your custady dies to you crashing your car, or them going flying in the sky

[...]

Just now, Nicolas March said:

Bounty hunter excution is broken, only get it when someone in your custady dies to you crashing your car, or them going flying in the sky

That's the point I am trying to make. I want to make it so it isn't a circumstance where bounty hunters are guaranteed to lose their licenses over some BS or other script failures.

[Gen. Henry Arnold]

Wiki Feedback Form

[...]

Just now, Gen. Henry Arnold said:

Wiki Feedback Form

I would, but I'm not gonna fill out a bunch of them. I was doing this to maybe get some community feedback and input.

[cHIP oTLE]

Just now, Nicolas March said:

Bounty hunter excution is broken, only get it when someone in your custady dies to you crashing your car, or them going flying in the sky

False, you get an "execution" charge for deaths of suspects in bounty hunter custody. (This charge is VERY buggy, even cops get it sometimes)

"Bounty hunter execution" only happens when you drop someone from a building and they die.

[Ben Flint]

Just now, Maric said:

I would, but I'm not gonna fill out a bunch of them. I was doing this to maybe get some community feedback and input.

so what you're saying is you're lazy 

[...]

Just now, Ben Flint ッ said:

so what you're saying is you're lazy 

Yes.

[Gen. Henry Arnold]

Some good proposed changes, realised that the GB didn't mention crank under the meth charge, added now.

[•ÐŠ• Randy]

Just now, Nicolas March said:

Bounty hunter excution is broken, only get it when someone in your custady dies to you crashing your car, or them going flying in the sky

Not true, threw someone off a building in my restraints and got the charge

[Atmosphere]

6 hours ago, Nicolas March said:

custady

 

[Jeff_]

7 hours ago, Nicolas March said:

Bounty hunter excution is broken, only get it when someone in your custady dies to you crashing your car, or them going flying in the sky

You never get bounty hunter execution when you drop your bounty off of a building. You only get it when someone vdm's you with a quad and your car blows up, killing your bounty or people who you have restrained inside.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Sonda

[Walt]

I feel that "possessions of explosives" is more of a detriment than meth, so maybe increase charge to 12,500?

[Nicolas March]

I never get it when I drop people off the roof.

[Dredd]

I read about half way through your post, and I have to admit I originally thought it was going to be a good thing but eventually realized you should have titled it: my opinions about the APD guidebook.  And skipped the rest. Because, quite honestly opinions are like assholes in that everybody has one. 

I'm a fan of the wiki and I'm a fan of the changes. The ambiguity at times can be relentless but that really has to do with the fact that it is just a game. 

The guidebook has been an absolute fucking shit show for YEARS, but I feel like there have been so many positive changes to it in an attempt to polish it.  Unfortunately, the staff doesn't always take that extra step to cover all of the bases.  I'm not going to go into my incident but I was victim to these "unwritten rules" about undocumented policies that leave it up to the individual to make an (un)educated guess.   

Swear to god the best bet for you is to play it safe every time you have someone in custody, always give reduced tickets unless you know 100% black and white you are in-line with the guidebook and only save those full tickets for the true douchebags.

[wollie35]

Just now, Dredd said:

I read about half way through your post, and I have to admit I originally thought it was going to be a good thing but eventually realized you should have titled it: my opinions about the APD guidebook.  And skipped the rest. Because, quite honestly opinions are like assholes in that everybody has one. 

I'm a fan of the wiki and I'm a fan of the changes. The ambiguity at times can be relentless but that really has to do with the fact that it is just a game. 

The guidebook has been an absolute fucking shit show for YEARS, but I feel like there have been so many positive changes to it in an attempt to polish it.  Unfortunately, the staff doesn't always take that extra step to cover all of the bases.  I'm not going to go into my incident but I was victim to these "unwritten rules" about undocumented policies that leave it up to the individual to make an (un)educated guess.   

Swear to god the best bet for you is to play it safe every time you have someone in custody, always give reduced tickets unless you know 100% black and white you are in-line with the guidebook and only save those full tickets for the true douchebags.

3

R.I.P

[Jay Davies]

I might be one of the few people who thinks this but I feel like another inconsistency in the guidebook is no rules for trackers. Shouldn’t you have to have probable cause to put one on a vehicle. I mean just going around and putting them on Willy Nilly just seems inappropriate and an invasion of the citizens privacy. I just think that, under the circumstances in which they are being used now, in which a civilian with no criminal record is pulled over for a “broken taillight” or “inspired inspection sticker” and they have no bounty, and a tracker is applied without any reason to believe they are going to do something illegal just seems illigitiimate and like a loophole in the guidebook. Especially since I feel like you should have to have probable cause to use it, not gain probable cause from using it.

[Jay Davies]

Just now, Jay Davies said:

I might be one of the few people who thinks this but I feel like another inconsistency in the guidebook is no rules for trackers. Shouldn’t you have to have probable cause to put one on a vehicle. I mean just going around and putting them on Willy Nilly just seems inappropriate and an invasion of the citizens privacy. I just think that, under the circumstances in which they are being used now, in which a civilian with no criminal record is pulled over for a “broken taillight” or “inspired inspection sticker” and they have no bounty, and a tracker is applied without any reason to believe they are going to do something illegal just seems illigitiimate and like a loophole in the guidebook. Especially since I feel like you should have to have probable cause to use it, not gain probable cause from using it.

Such as if a civilian is exiting a field and instead of busting them there, you could pull them over, track there car, and get them at dealer. This is also a far more legitimate way of using the tracker especially since the APD is geared towards role play and no where in the world is a police force allowed to track a vehicle

[bbgreg17]

Just now, Jay Davies said:

no where in the world is a police force allowed to track a vehicle

1

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 637.7

(a) No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.

(b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle.

(c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.

(d) As used in this section, “electronic tracking device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals.

(e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

(f) A violation of this section by a person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation licensed under Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code shall constitute grounds for revocation of the license issued to that person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions that provide for the revocation of the license as set forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code .

 

That being said yes the code says lawful use. Honestly, I kinda feel like if a cop wants to waste 1k putting a tracker on a vehicle, let them. Personally, I will use them when I go into an illegal area and see a vehicle I know I can tracker before engaging. Or if I see a vehicle I think is going to be used for drug or weapon trafficking. 

I feel I should clarify that lawful use by law enforcement in the penal code would mean something like an order from a judge.

[Patato]

Just now, bbgreg17 said:

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 637.7

(a) No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.

(b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle.

(c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.

[Jay Davies]

Just now, bbgreg17 said:

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 637.7

(a) No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.

(b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle.

(c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.

(d) As used in this section, “electronic tracking device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals.

(e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

(f) A violation of this section by a person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation licensed under Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code shall constitute grounds for revocation of the license issued to that person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions that provide for the revocation of the license as set forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code .

 

That being said yes the code says lawful use. Honestly, I kinda feel like if a cop wants to waste 1k putting a tracker on a vehicle, let them. Personally, I will use them when I go into an illegal area and see a vehicle I know I can tracker before engaging. Or if I see a vehicle I think is going to be used for drug or weapon trafficking. 

I feel I should clarify that lawful use by law enforcement in the penal code would mean something like an order from a judge.

Ok, iv never seen someone on asylum say hell yea you can track my car! But I’m jut saying maybe put a small restriction on them.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Jay Davies
Spelling

[Jay Davies]

And I’m saying Not like a court order or some shit but something where I can’t go track every car in Altis if I wanted to (or had enough money to do)

[bbgreg17]

Just now, Jay Davies said:

Ok, iv never seen someone on asylum say he’ll yea you can track my car! But I’m jut saying maybe put a small restriction on them.

I really don't think that anyone would. If you want to put restrictions on when cops can put trackers on civs, then are civs still allowed to put trackers on cops whenever they want? If you do put restrictions on then how do you punish those who do it unjustly? How do you prove they actually have a tracker on your car? They could legitly just be repairing, or putting a tracker on then repairing, or repairing and canceling. Honestly, I don't really see a way to enforce any rules that would be made as proof would always be a very gray area unless they openly admitted it.

[Action_Jaxon]

On 2/28/2018 at 1:35 PM, Dredd said:

I read about half way through your post, and I have to admit I originally thought it was going to be a good thing but eventually realized you should have titled it: my opinions about the APD guidebook.  And skipped the rest. Because, quite honestly opinions are like assholes in that everybody has one. 

I'm a fan of the wiki and I'm a fan of the changes. The ambiguity at times can be relentless but that really has to do with the fact that it is just a game. 

The guidebook has been an absolute fucking shit show for YEARS, but I feel like there have been so many positive changes to it in an attempt to polish it.  Unfortunately, the staff doesn't always take that extra step to cover all of the bases.  I'm not going to go into my incident but I was victim to these "unwritten rules" about undocumented policies that leave it up to the individual to make an (un)educated guess.   

Swear to god the best bet for you is to play it safe every time you have someone in custody, always give reduced tickets unless you know 100% black and white you are in-line with the guidebook and only save those full tickets for the true douchebags.

This is my dad 

[LILXRECON202]

The guidebook gets updated, but while it doesnt just listen to whats on their.

[Jay Davies]

4 hours ago, bbgreg17 said:

I really don't think that anyone would. If you want to put restrictions on when cops can put trackers on civs, then are civs still allowed to put trackers on cops whenever they want? If you do put restrictions on then how do you punish those who do it unjustly? How do you prove they actually have a tracker on your car? They could legitly just be repairing, or putting a tracker on then repairing, or repairing and canceling. Honestly, I don't really see a way to enforce any rules that would be made as proof would always be a very gray area unless they openly admitted it.

That is true, idek anymore

[Hanzo/Dirty Scrubz]

5 hours ago, Jay Davies said:

I might be one of the few people who thinks this but I feel like another inconsistency in the guidebook is no rules for trackers. Shouldn’t you have to have probable cause to put one on a vehicle. I mean just going around and putting them on Willy Nilly just seems inappropriate and an invasion of the citizens privacy. I just think that, under the circumstances in which they are being used now, in which a civilian with no criminal record is pulled over for a “broken taillight” or “inspired inspection sticker” and they have no bounty, and a tracker is applied without any reason to believe they are going to do something illegal just seems illigitiimate and like a loophole in the guidebook. Especially since I feel like you should have to have probable cause to use it, not gain probable cause from using it.

Trackers are almost always applied in cases of reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) which is fine. For example I see a guy in a box truck leaving athira towards lakka then I can reasonably surmise he may be making his way to the cocaine field and will use an RP excuse to pull him over and add a tracker. This will never likely change and shouldn’t unless the captains go full retard.

[Jay Davies]

Just now, Hanzo/Dirty Scrubz said:

Trackers are almost always applied in cases of reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) which is fine. For example I see a guy in a box truck leaving athira towards lakka then I can reasonably surmise he may be making his way to the cocaine field and will use an RP excuse to pull him over and add a tracker. This will never likely change and shouldn’t unless the captains go full retard.

That is a reasonable way to use trackers, Im just saying if I see a random ass boxtruck and its on the side of the road and the guy is fixing it and hes heading to mine, Probably should'nt throw a tracker on it, but they will anyway, And I don't call that reasonable suspicion

[bbgreg17]

Just now, Jay Davies said:

That is a reasonable way to use trackers, Im just saying if I see a random ass boxtruck and its on the side of the road and the guy is fixing it and hes heading to mine, Probably should'nt throw a tracker on it, but they will anyway, And I don't call that reasonable suspicion

If all he is doing is mining, what does he care if there is a tracker on his vehicle? If anything, should it get stolen, the cops will know exactly where it is.

I get what you are saying though, a cop pulling someone over at Athira checkpoint and trackering them. You have no way of knowing if they are going to mine, or run coke.

Edited March 2, 2018 by bbgreg17

[•ÐŠ• Randy]

Completely off topic, but can we add a straight to jail charge for people threatening points to a cop every single time they get caught doing something. Its pretty clear people do it to try to get out of charges and its to the point where it just ruins RP. If you have a problem with a cop, just report them on the forums, dont go yelling "your gonna get points if you charge me/give me a ticket". Threatening points doesnt do any good, it just pisses everyone off.

[Jay Davies]

Just now, BLONDJOKES said:

Completely off topic, but can we add a straight to jail charge for people threatening points to a cop every single time they get caught doing something. Its pretty clear people do it to try to get out of charges and its to the point where it just ruins RP. If you have a problem with a cop, just report them on the forums, dont go yelling "your gonna get points if you charge me/give me a ticket". Threatening points doesnt do any good, it just pisses everyone off.

Shouldnt make you mad if you didnt do anything wrong. Say if you feel I did something wrong feel free to report it to the government website.

[Kernikov]

20 hours ago, bbgreg17 said:

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 637.7

Shame California is a joke.

[Jay Davies]

Just now, Kernikov said:

Shame California is a joke.

That is so true XD