Can you legally move a dead body to preserve it as evidence? A fisherman is heading upstream in his boat, and sees a human corpse float past. Obviously even if it wasn't murder, it still warrants a 911 call because it was a death. The river however, is steadily moving the body away. Can the fisherman move the body and avoid legal jeopardy because the intent was to preserve it as evidence? You can make other scenarios I'm sure, but I chose this one as an example. Basically, the concept here is that doing nothing will possibly result in the total destruction of the body/evidence.
In this specific scenario, not only is it not a crime, failure to do so is a breach of proper maritime protocols and could be illegal. A person manning a boat and sees a human in water in distress should immediately go to the rescue or recovery of the victim. This is commonly started by the crewman of the vessel who spots the body shouting &quot;Man overboard&quot; once... which triggers every crewman on the deck to also shout the same thing exactly once regardless of if they can see the man who is overboard (The idea is that the call is so all crew on the deck are not announcing the sighting but responding that they know there's an emergency situation in progress... and to muster to the appropriate situations). The boat's helmsman or pilot will then proceed to maneuver to recover the body in the water and bring it onboard the boat, (if traveling by sail, to then as soon as possible transfer to a motor powered vessel or to land which ever is quicker). Additionally, should the boat have radio communication, the situation should trigger a mayday communication which will alert other vessels, regardless of purpose and local emergency services to the situation, with GPS tracking aiding all responders. Typically while underway at sea or in large bodies of water, all operators of watercraft are required to respond, regardless of actual purpose on the water (recall the famous &quot;Miracle on the Hudson&quot; incident where New York Ferry Operators were the actual first responders to get ALL passengers and crew off the crashed plane to land, where EMS and police services were waiting to deal with the survivors). Most boating licenses these days require a basic understanding of duties with maritime safety and if you come upon a situation while underway, you are a first responder automatically. Remove the question of water and say that there is person who you are unsure of if they are alive or dead on dry land. Under law, you cannot be held liable for anything you do in the course of saving a life so long as you are acting within your competency to do so, and do not take actions you are not licensed to do as part of training, oversight, and regulations dictate, you cannot be sued for medical injuries inflicted on someone in the course of saving their life (called &quot;Life over Limb&quot;... that if the only way to save an unconscious person from death is to amputate a limb, you're not liable for cutting off the limb in question, so long as you are trained to do this. To a lesser extreme example, if CPR is performed right, you will break the victims ribs... since it's a question of keeping the person alive, the temporary pain and handicap of broken ribs is seen as acceptable). As a lifeguard (for pools, I wasn't certified for &quot;wilderness lifeguarding&quot; but the differences in this respect were minimum) your first thing to do when getting in the water to fish out a swimmer in distress was to get them back to the pool deck before life efforts could occur (there are a few times where you had to start the life saving efforts in water, but I can count them on one hand, and one of those incidents was only after confirming your victim was conscious and even then you still were moving to get them out of the water asap... it's just asap would be a little bit longer. We also weren't trained to pronounce death. If it was so serious that CPR starts, you do not stop unless another guard or EMS relieve you.). In these situations, there is proper evidence gathering procedures that will be used to establish what happened. For example, the first responders will be fingerprinted and prints in the areas touched for life saving efforts will be noted as part of the evidence. Additionally, paramedics, EMS and first responders will often alert police to any items of note they saw around the victim that were disturbed in the process of life saving efforts. The police may collect evidence from you to rule you out as a suspect (by showing the evidence on the body was consistent with applied life saving techniques) and to identify evidence not related to you at all (a pink fiber on the body that doesn't match any of your clothes means the body came into contact with the fibers from another source). This also establishes &quot;Chain of Custody&quot; when you call the body in and stay with it and allow minimum contact with it (many larger ships will store the body in a locked room to keep crew and passenger contact to a minimum). Either way, so long as you tell the police everything you did in rescue and recovery, this isn't tampering with evidence on the face of it. If something that is inconsistent with your story comes up, it's not necessarily incriminating either... in the heat of the moment in a rescue and recovery effort, tunnel vision can form and you aren't expect to recall everything you did. Police should know this and understand that you were cooperating in what for most of the world is an unusual situation.
The citation could be written but it should be easy to beat. In the circumstance that you describe the accused could just say the he was not driving his car at the time. If the prosecution is a sham with all your friends saying you all saw this thing, then the defendant can bring all of his friends to say that he was at some other place. The benefit to having a cop on the scene is that the cop will get ID and positive identification. The other thing the cop has is expert judgment. If a cop sees unsafe lane movement and writes a ticket, his testimony in court carries more weight than the "it was not unsafe!" testimony of the accused. Keep in mind, getting all of your witnesses to court on the same day, after continuances and other delays, and getting them all to tell the same story to overcome the presumption of innocence is no small feat. All that to say, it's easier with police as witness. There are two mechanisms which could get you where you want to go. Private prosecution and citizen's arrest. Private prosecutions are a part of history but not strictly unavailable at the state level. You could write up some charging documents to see if you can get your target indicted. Citizen's arrest is interesting because the rules are fairly unclear unless governed by a specific statute. There are two necessary parts of citizens arrest and the first part gets the attention. The first part is the detention (arrest). The crimes for which a citizen can legally detain a suspect are likely defined by state statute. The second part is giving testimony about the witnessed crime. Let's assume that you see a felony happen and watch the perp walk into a gas station bathroom. You are prepared to arrest, do part number one, and then call the cops, to do part number two. But while you wait for the guy to come out of the bathroom a cop walks up. You explain the felony and the cop goes into the bathroom and arrests the guy. It's purely witness testimony that led to the arrest and the indictment (physical evidence - let's say there is none) and even the trial. You successfully get the guy indicted and when you show up to testify you tell the story as you witnessed it. Now the accused gets to take the stand. When he takes the stand he says, "it was the other guy." When asked, "what other guy?" He says, "I was in the bathroom and a guy ran in and went into the stall. Then a cop came in and arrested me." Reasonable doubt right there. How much more if it's a bunch of friends ratting on some lone driver? Police need evidence. Prosecutors need evidence. Judges need evidence.
Assuming that the above can be established by admissible evidence, that sounds like a case for first degree murder, and probably various other crimes as well. In some jurisdictions there is a specific crime of &quot;Murder for hire&quot; which might also apply if available on the jurisdiction where this occurred. A comment mentions a possible insanity defense. That is going to depend on detailed facts not included in the question, but might be possible.
The standard of proof for a criminal conviction is the same. So they would similarly need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the foreign national of a crime. But deportation is not a criminal proceeding, and has a different standard of proof. (In deportation you also don't have criminal defendant rights like right to an attorney if you can't afford one.) I believe the standard is "clear and convincing evidence".
In all likelihood, the judge's order related to data collection and reselling is not legally enforceable. They weren't parties to the expungement action, so the judge doesn't have jurisdiction over them. And, the First Amendment protects the right to say truthful things pretty absolutely. Arguably, if the sites provided the information without making clear that it might not be current because records were expunged or corrected, there might be a claim for negligent misrepresentation, false light, or even defamation, but I seriously doubt that even those claims would hold up. The language in the order might cause sites to comply out of not legally justified concern, or just a desire to be accurate, even if it is not enforceable. So, it doesn't hurt to bring that information to the attention of such sites and ask them to take down the information. But, when push comes to shove, I very much doubt that you would prevail in court enforcing that order against them. Certainly, if you do nothing, they will do nothing, because they are not psychic and have no idea that the court order related to those records has been entered. Even a valid and enforceable order directed at a party over whom a court has jurisdiction is not effective until the person ordered to comply with it has notice of the order. And, there is no system that gives sites like that notice without you taking action to inform them of an order.
There are some complexities here, and several possibilities. First of all, it seems from the question that: There were not any &quot;exigent circumstances&quot; or any other special situation which would justify making a search without a warrant (there are several circumstances which can justify a warrantless search, but none are mentioned in the question). The police had no probable cause, indeed not even any reasonable suspicion. Thus the police had no valid reason even to request a warrant, and if they had asked for one, they should have been refused. No resident of the house consented to any search at any point. The police had no honest belief that they were acting lawfully. They knew, or any reasonable police officer should have known, that they were acting unlawfully. Now, let us consider some of the possibilities left open by the question. For purposes of discussion, let us assume that the house was owned by Bob and Carol, and no one else lived in it. There are several possibilities. Case One: The evidence appears to implicate Bob. Bob is charged, and Bob's lawyer Joan makes a timely motion to suppress the evidence. The judge should hold a suppression hearing, and under these conditions, should suppress the evidence. The trial will go forward without it, or be dismissed if there is not enough other evidence to proceed. Case Two: Much like Case One, but another group of police officers had good reason to suspect Bob, and was already in the process of preparing a request for a warrant, supported by valid probable cause. Had the first group not searched the house unlawfully, the second group would have obtained a valid warrant and found the evidence under its authority. In this situation, known as inevitable discovery the evidence would be admitted, and the unlawful search will not matter. Case Three: The evidence implicates Fred, not Bob or Carol. Fred did not live in the house, but had asked Carol to store some boxes for him. Carol did not know what was in them. Fred has no privacy rights to the house. Bob or Carol could have lawfully consented to a search, and Fred would have no grounds to object. Fred has no grounds to suppress the evidence, as Fred's rights were not violated, and Fred cannot assert Bob or Carol's rights. A trial of Fred would proceed as if the search had been lawful. Bob and Carol may have grounds for a Section 1983 lawsuit against the police for violation of their rights, but that will not help Fred. Case Four: The evidence appears to implicate Bob. The police arrest Bob, and tell him that they have a case against him, and that if he does not confess, they will also arrest Carol as an accomplice. (They lie, but Bob believes them.) Bob pleads guilty. The unlawful search is never raised, and Bob is sentenced as if it had been lawful. Case Five: The evidence appears to implicate Bob. Bob's lawyer Joan fails to request a suppression hearing, or to object at trial to the evidence from the unlawful search. Or more likely, instead of going to trial, Bob's lawyer arranges a plea bargain without raising the issue of the search. Bob is convicted as if the search had been lawful. Bob may have a valid appeal on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, as Joan should have known better. Case Six: The evidence appears to implicate Bob. But the police have other evidence as well. Bob's lawyer raises the issue of the unlawful search. However, the prosecutor convinces Bob's lawyer Joan that they can probably convict Bob even without the evidence from the search. Joan arranges a plea bargain, and Bob accepts it. Bob will be sentenced under the plea deal, and nothing will be done about the unlawful search, except that Bob may get a somewhat better deal because the authorities do not want it exposed in court. Note that only in cases One and Five will a possibly guilty person possibly go free because of the unlawful search, and it is by no means certain even there. It is also possible that a judge will wrongly admit the evidence in a Case One situation. This is likely to be corrected on appeal, with the unlawfulness as blatant as the question assumes. In a case where the unlawfulness is more marginal, this is less sure.
Murder is definined in Utah as: Murder is causing the death of another person under any of the following circumstances: ... Knowingly engaging in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person and under circumstances which evidence a depraved indifference to human life. It's not unreasonable to consider dropping 3,000,000 bouncy balls over a populated area as &quot;depraved indifference&quot;, particularly if someone had asked/read the question and would therefore know the potential consequences. Whether the killer would be charged with murder or manslaughter depends on the exact circumstances.
There are all manner of reasons that evidence can be excluded at a trial, most of which are set forth in rules of evidence. If the evidence was not admitted on the grounds of relevance and the charge was speeding, I presume that the reason that it was found not be to relevant was that it was not possible from a video to determine how fast someone was driving and there was no dispute in the case over who was driving. If the defendant could have articulated some reason that the video was relevant to those points, perhaps it could have been admitted. But, as if often the case, pro se defendants are usually not articulate enough to set forth a legally relevant reason that evidence should be admitted. Unless the defendant could show that the video showed something allowing a jury to determine whether or not the law was violated, it probably wouldn't be relevant and I can't easily imagine how it would be relevant, but perhaps there was some special facts or circumstances that might show, for example, that the speed gun was actually picking up another vehicle.