Does an arrest have to be made in order for an investigation to be over? When is it officially over.
|
Does an arrest have to be made in order for an investigation to be over? When is it officially over.
Depends on the crime I suppose but if no guily party or resolution is found it could be closed unfavorabaly I would think after a certain amout of time you also should look into the statue of limitations for that crime after the statur of limitations the case could be closed I'm not a lawyer though just a friendly neighbor lol
Hello again, c:
I thought we said goodnight... Oh well. The investigation is over when they make an arrest or when the statute of limitations expires, whichever comes first. In YOUR case, that statute of limitations is probably one year. It runs from the time the crime was reported.
excon
Yeah I posted this a little bit ago when I was still looking for answers thank you for answering thou and yea you really do keep up with what is going on here don't cha. Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaseyatim
What?
The other guy said the same thing as I did! Read closely! :cool: the only thing different that I was saying is that it would be closed unfavorably like closed until something new comes up if they don't have enough evidence to convict or arrest but they could reopen if more substantial evidence came about. Does that clarify what I was saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaseyatim
I work in the legal system and I have no idea what "closed unfavorably" means.
A case isn't closed until there is a conviction and sometimes not even then.
I don't see that "the other guy" said that.
This is the legal board, not the "I suppose" board.
As I said before I am just a friendly neighbor to give advice not a professional and I was using my own words not legal jargon because I am not a professional... an if the statue of limitations is up then they cannot be convicted... Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by judykaytee
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaseyatim
Depends on whether it's a capital crime. State? Federal?
A person only has to be arrested before the Statute runs, not tried/convicted. People are arrested due to a statute problem (at least in my area) and then the question is can additional investigation PROVE the charges.
So, wrong, a person can be convicted if the Statute has expired.
This case is theft under 500 or somewhere around that amount and I am under the impression that if there is no real evidence that a crime was even committed and no real evidence someone did the crime then no charges can be given RIGHT? Or WRONG?
Well first an arrest does not really close an investigation, but it does normally stop the police from looking for another suspect. The police or the investigators for the DA often do a lot more work after an arrest is made, in fact, that is when a lot of questioning, new evidence and more happens.
If and when the person is convicted is when the case is finally closed.
BEyond that, if and when the statue of limitation happens, then it will be closed.
Beyond that, all cases are still open, but may not be active in investigation
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleaninglady81
Where did this happen? Statutes vary.
No one needs "real evidence" to arrest. In theory the case should be strong enough to convict but that doesn't always happen. Charges are filed all the time based on what things appear to be and then evidence is gathered. Charges are likewise dismissed and people are found innocent of charges all the time.
For $500 I can't imagine the Police are beating the bushes to arrest/convict.
Was the $500 covered by insurance of some sort?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:13 PM. |