Is there a protocol for whom police should interview first - the victim or the suspect?
Probably, somewhere in the training manuals, cops and deputies are taught the correct order of interviews when you have several people involved in a crime or another offense. I don't know what the order is, but I know when a conclusion is reached because the wrong order was followed.
Let's say that a crime is reported, a suspect is described, and the police are fortunate enough to contact and detain the suspect before they interview the victim. How far should they question the suspect before they interview the victim?
Let's say, further, that the police interview the suspect, and he describes one version of the incident - his version, of course, and he naturally describes it to his advantage.
When the police finally interview the victim, he (the victim) describes what happened.
And then the officer says that no arrest will be made, because it's a "he said, she said" situation.
Might the result have been different, had the officer interviewed the victim first? After all, why would a crime be reported to police in the first place, if something hadn't happened?
I'm reminded of a night back in about 1999-2000, when I sicced the sheriff's department on a serious traffic violator. Woodstock Police got the violator stopped and held him until a deputy arrived. The deputy spoke to the violator first, and then she talked to me.
After listening to me, she said she was not going to ticket the violator, even though I was willing to go to court and testify as to the violation. Why was she going to let him go? Because he said he hadn't done what I said he had!
After the deputy left, the Woodstock cop said to me, "She should have just written that guy the ticket. She has no idea how much grief you are going to cause her."
I contacted Sheriff Nygren to complain about the deputy's refusal to ticket the violator, asserting that she was the deputy only, and not the judge. He backed her up and said it was her discretion not to ticket the violator. Nope! Sorry, I don't agree.
The deputy's job was to ticket the violator.
This has happened more than once with deputies of the McHenry County Sheriff's Department and me.
Harvard Seeking Tax Hike of 22%
2 hours ago
6 comments:
Using your logic, anyone can have anybody, arrested for anything. You beleive your weord is fact and the deputy should not weigh any factors and just write a ticket based upon your say so.
The deputy must walk the line between truth and fiction and use some discretion. Just because YOU say it's so, doesn't mean it is. Once the police become involved and in fact write a citation, the agency becomes complicit in your zealotry and may find its self defending a civil suit.
Why not just go to your buddies in the SAO and have them issue a summons...
You bring it upon yourself Gus.
If a citizen wishes to make a complaint against another, it's the judge who should decide guilt, not the cop or deputy.
If I want to have you arrested for tailgating me at the speed limit at night with your bright headlights on and then passing me in a no-passing zone, and if I can find a cop to stop you, then you ought to get a ticket, if I'll go to court and testify. Or if I follow you while you weave all over the road and I can find a cop to stop you, same deal.
After eight straight guilties in McHenry County Traffic Court, one driver finally got away with his violation, because his passenger and he lied in court and the prosecutor was so disinterested and unprepared; and because the Woodstock Police Dept. "lost" my two-page typewritten statement.
The officer's report referenced my statement as an attachment, and his report was signed by his sergeant. But my statement never made it to the Records Division and then to the prosecutor. Had the prosecutor read the officer's report, he should have wondered where my statement was.
I agree with Just in this regard.
Many times a person wants someone arrested or they say they want to sign a complaint. Often it is punitive. The "I'll show them" mentality. In deference to your opinion, the cops are not playing Judge and Jury, but may be unconvinced that an immediate arrest is necessary. As long as the police officer has made a report of the two drivers statements, the complainant can go to the SAO and see if they will authorize a complaint. Why drag a cop to court and pay him OT just so you can have that fuzzy feeling while you play highway warden?
Back to the point ... should a cop talk to the victim first or to the suspect? Assume, if you will, that I am neither.
Typically one talks to the victim or complainant first....otherwise how do you know what the substance of the complaint or alleged issue is.
Bingo! Thanks, Notawannabee. That's what I thought, too.
But things get done a little differently in some towns in the County.
Post a Comment