I'm wondering if any of you out there might be able to help me out with this situation. My wife has a record with credit card theft. She was put on Probation back in 2004 and was taken off sometime in 2008. She completed her probation so all of that was taken care of.

Just today 2 detectives come knocking our door asking to speak to my wife. Back in July of this year 2009 when she worked at some retail store she was fired for charging a customers credit card. She attempted the customer's credit card about 6 times but 1 transaction went through the other 5 got declined.

The detective told my wife to cooperate with her and to be honest and to tell the truth and my wife did. The detective told my wife in two weeks that she must report to the police station so she can give her statement. The detective told my wife you work with me and tell me the truth then I will do my best and to help you to get this matter resolved.

The detective went on to say he knows times are rough and we all try to make ends meet. The tone of voice of the detectives were very professional and friendly.

The detectives said when you come down in two weeks to my police station you will go home that day. Is this really true? My wife has a good point if the cops really wanted to arrest her today when they came to the house they would have done and took her to jail today.

My wife is very scared when she goes down in two weeks to give her statement. She has never been in this type of situation before. Will my wife come home when she goes down in two weeks or will she be sent to jail?

No charges were brought up against my wife.

What usually happens in this situation?

Of course charges are going to be brought, they did not come to your house to drink a cup of coffee.

And of course they acted nice and were lying to you, that is how they get you to confess most of the time,

They are not your friends, and the police officer has no ability to help you in any way besides making sure you get convicted.

I hope she never told the officers anything in your home, she needs to hire an attorney and not say a word without him there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Of course charges are going to be brought, they did not come to your house to drink a cup of coffee.

And of course they acted nice and were lying to you, that is how they get you to confess most of the time,

They are not your friends, and the police officer has no ability to help you in any way besides making sure you get convicted.

I hope she never told the officers anything in your home, she needs to hire an attorney and not say a word without him there

---

If that was the case why didn't the detectives take my wife today when they came to the house. We moved from our old location where we were living to our new location about 2 months ago. Some how the detectives found out our new address.

This has been going for the last 6 months or so. If they wanted to arrest my wife they would have of done it today when they showed up at the house and not tell her to come down to the police station in two weeks to give her statement.

The detective did say that it was nothing major that's why it took them 6 months to come find my wife. He is just trying to close his case and no charges have brought up against my wife. The person hasn't even filed a police report.

They found the new address since they were searching for her,

They have to get an indictment ( depending on your state) or present the evidence ( after they get her confession) to the DA. Then they will get warrant to arreest her.

It took them six months since it is not a murder or attack, if it was "nothing" they would not still be looking for her after 6 months.
And sorry if there was no police report, the police would not be investigating,

You are being lied to, I was a police officer for years and this is how we get people to confess so we can clear out cases, we lie to them that it is OK, we will help them, we are their friends and doing this to make sure that everything will be fine,

It will be fine for us, we get a higher case ratio closed, gets points for making an arrest.

Read your last sentence, just closing a "case" if there is no police report there is no case.
And guess what the only way a case is actually closed is by an arrest. If there is no arrest the case remains open

Jerseyguy:
I am a former cop it seems that the police are trying to close a case nothing else. Trust me if your wife was going to be arrested she would have been arrested by the police. Police don't come to your house just to say hello. I think that they are finishing a case that's all just want her statement. Common sense is it doesn't take six months to find someone they probably new where she lived but the case was so minor that it was not important to them at all. You have no worries at all just go down make your statement all will be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shipfish

Jerseyguy:
I am a former cop it seems that the police are trying to close a case nothing else. Trust me if your wife was going to be arrested she would have been arrested by the police. Police don't come to your house just to say hello. I think that they are finishing a case thats all just want her statement. Common sense is it doesn't take six months to find someone they probally new where she lived but the case was so minor that it was not important to them at all. You have no worries at all just go down make your statement all will be fine.

---

"No worries at all"?

How can you be so sure?

How about the fact that his wife is a thief, and he doesn't know when to expect the NEXT cop to come to his house?

OP, you should get your wife into counseling, to find out why she steals. It could be an addiction. I know it could be the fact that she NEEDED something, but the bottom line is that her activity is ILLEGAL.

If she will steal someone else's property, who knows what else she can do?

I wish you both the best.

I just want to say that these other people have really never worked on cases at all. You can't just say that a case is not important and throw it under a rug. In a case that someone is going to be arrested they would tell you to come down ASAP or just arrest you in our house. If the wanted to press charges it doesn't matter to the cops how you get their at all just that you come. And if they were going to arrest her they would have a warrant all the need is the cops in town to come with them to arrest her. I feel this is a case someone probably filed and later decided not to pursue and dropped the case. Which means they need her statement for their records. You have nothing to worry about at all make your statement and make sure you go cops are always willing to help people. They don't lie either if they wanted to arrest your wife she be in a jail right now but she isn't right? So stop worrying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shipfish

They dont lie either if they wanted to arrest your wife she be in a jail right now but she isn't right?

---

Hello ship:

Cops don't lie?? Snicker, snicker... Is that why you're an EX cop, cause you told the truth?? Here's some basic information on whether cops LIE:
--------------------------------------

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Police can lie to you in order to extract a confession, Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969). The only place an officer cannot lie is while testifying under oath in court. Police are only required to advise you of your Constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, if you are in custody and being interrogated about the offense for which you are being confined. This point is usually determined to be the point in which the suspect is placed under arrest, or the suspect would reasonably conclude that he or she is under arrest and not free to leave. Detectives are very good at creating the illusion that you are free to go, when actually, you are not. For example, the detective may tell you that you are free to go at any time, but that it would benefit you to provide your side of the story as the evidence does not look to be in your favor, therefore you can be persuaded into continuing the interrogation.

During interrogations, police may lie about the facts of a case. For example, where you have an 18 year old male who has a 15 year old girlfriend, the officer will tell him that they have evidence that he raped her, when in fact, they do not. The 18 year old tells the officer that they had consensual sex and that there was no rape involved; now the officer has a confession as to Statutory Rape that came straight from the mouth of the suspect. In trying to exonerate himself from the charge of Rape, the 18 year old legally confessed to the lesser crime of Statutory Rape. In Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969), the officer was able to extract a confession from the criminal defendant by lying about the strength of the case. During interrogation, the officer lied to the criminal defendant and told him that his cousin, had confessed to the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, also implicating the criminal defendant in the crime. The criminal defendant then also confessed to the crime in reliance of the officers false statement. The Court determined that the criminal defendants confession was voluntary and the fact that he was given his Miranda rights prior to making the confession was relevant to a finding of waiver and voluntariness.

Police officers are also allowed to fabricate evidence to support a deception. In re D.A.S. 391 A.2d 255, (D.C. App. 1978) the police pretended to compare the defendants fingerprints to a fingerprint on the victims checkbook and pronounced them a match when in truth, no fingerprints were recovered from the checkbook. The defendant confessed to the robbery and the Court held that the police deception did not by itself invalidate a voluntary confession. Id. At 258. Confessions are not invalid or inadmissible, even if they are obtained by deception or trickery, as long as the means employed are not calculated to produce an untrue statement. Only if the deception, combined with other factors, coerces the suspect or defendant to confess, will the court deem the confession inadmissible. Id. at 259.

In order to extract confessions, police may also attempt to persuade the suspect or defendant that her conduct was less blameworthy than anticipated. Deborah Young, Unnecessary Evil, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 425, 433 (1996). Police may lie about the victim to diminish the suspects fear of confessing. In People v. Jordan, 597 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), the police told the defendant that he may be able to save the victim if he told the police exactly what happened. The police falsely told the defendant that the victim had just received eighteen stitches for her knife wound and would soon be out of the hospital, when in actuality, the victim had died. The defendant confessed to stabbing the victim believing that he would be charged with assault and not murder. The court affirmed the murder conviction, holding that, “mere deception by the police is not alone sufficient to render a confession inadmissible unless accompanied by a promise or threat that could induce a false confession.” Id. At 808.

In Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), federal agents used an informant as a secret conspirator to listen in on the criminal defendants conversations. He made incriminating statements to the informant, not knowing that the informant was secretly working with the federal agents. At the time the statement was made, the criminal defendant was out on bail and had already secured an attorney. The Court held that because the criminal defendant had secured an attorney and had already been indicted, federal agents could not attempt to elicit a confession without the presence of the criminal defendants retained counsel. Id. at 204.

The Court is reluctant to bar such police tactics and confessions because of the assumption that an innocent person of normal intelligence will not admit to a crime she did not commit. Patrick M. McMullen, Questioning the Questions: The Impermissibility of Police Deception in Interrogations of Juveniles, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 971, 974 (2005). However, the Court has recognized the inherently coercive nature of police interrogations, thereby mandating the police to provide Miranda warnings to suspects and defendants to lessen such coercion.

The vast majority of evidence that prosecutors obtain against defendants comes straight from their own mouths because of the Police interrogation methods discussed.

For these reasons, it is best to obtain the services of a skilled criminal defense attorney before an opportunity for questioning arises, or any charges are filed. Police can only arrest a person if probable cause exists, and the choice to remain silent cannot be part of that analysis. If the officers already have probable cause, they would not need to question you. If they do not, the statement you make could well supply it.
------------------------------------

Yup, cops lie!

excon

I'm still scratching my head wondering just how did she get another retail job when she's already a credit card thief in the first place? And 6 transactions and only one went through tells me she's definitely a two time loser. And that poster saying she'll just go home after she gives her statement is really unbelieveable to me. Won't happen. Depending on the value of the transaction that did go through she'll probably end up going to trial over her "second" offense.

Jerseyguy - you can rationalize all you want about why they didn't just arrest her when they came to your home and spoke with her. When she comes in to give her statement chances are pretty good she's not checking out but checking into the county jail. She is a thief. This apparently is the second time she's been caught. Who knows how many times she's done this and didn't get caught.

First, I totally agree with Chuck and disagree with Shipfish on one point. The police would NOT have taken the time to find your wife and visit her if no police report was made. The police have WAY too much on their plate to waste time investigating a case if there is no complainant. The credit card holder may not have complained, but someone, probably the store, has filed a complaint.

On the other hand, I find it very un alarming that the officer gave her a two week appointment to come down for a statement. If there was an intent to arrest, I believe they would have asked her to come in much sooner. The police may have just wanted to question her and that's why they didn't have a warrant.

However, I would not go to the police station without legal representation. I don't believe they intend to arrest her, they wouldn't have given her so much time to come in if they intended an arrest.

My wife went in to give her statement today and the detective that came to our house was a man of his word. She went in the process took about an hour and a half my wife cooperated and did not lie about what was on the police report and next thing you know it she was FREE to go. The detective said this was something very minor and just needed to close his case. No charges was brought up against my wife and she does not have to appear in court.

Everything is all over and done with and she does not have to worry about any of this ever again.

{Mod Note: rude and insulting (as well as inaccurate, remarks removed-<>}

Did anyone read some of OP's other threads? https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/crimin...ml#post1783787

This is not "his" only legal problem!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Did anyone read some of OP's other threads? https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/crimin...ml#post1783787

---

This matter was all taken care when she went back to court and they found out the warrant was for a missed court date that's it that's why she got violated for her probation.She was taken off probation when she went to this court appearance. {rudeness removed}

This site is staffed by volunteers who giuve freely of their time and expertise. You asked for help and based on the info YOU provided we gave the best advice we could. Your rude and inaccurate response was totally uncalled for.

We are all human and we do make mistakes, but our track record is pretty good. I believe all the responses you received were reasonable based on the info you gave us. That some of the advice proved inaccurate is only because we each answered based on our own knowledge and experience with the law and the info you provided.

As far as my own partiticpation in this thread. I believe my response proved to be accurate despite your claim to the contrary.

I still maintain that there had to be a complainant or there would have been no case to close.

I also stated that, the fact, that they gave her 2 weeks to report indicated this was a minor issue and that she had little to fear. But I stand by advice to having legal representation when dealing with the police.

I believe you owe all of us an apology.