Check out some similar questions!

cleaninglady81 · Jul 12, 2009, 11:17 AM

Does an arrest have to be made in order for an investigation to be over? When is it officially over.

kaseyatim · Jul 12, 2009, 04:05 PM

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

excon · Jul 12, 2009, 04:09 PM

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

cleaninglady81 · Jul 12, 2009, 04:17 PM

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

JudyKayTee · Jul 12, 2009, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by kaseyatim

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 certian 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 im not a lawyer though just a friendly neighbor lol

What?

kaseyatim · Jul 12, 2009, 06:13 PM

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?

JudyKayTee · Jul 12, 2009, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by kaseyatim

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 dont have enough evidence to convict or arrest but they could reopen if more substantial evidence came about. does that clarify what i was saying??

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.

kaseyatim · Jul 12, 2009, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by judykaytee

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?

JudyKayTee · Jul 12, 2009, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by kaseyatim

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 b/c i am not a professional ...an if the statue of limitations is up then they cannot be convicted ... Right?

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.

cleaninglady81 · Jul 12, 2009, 07:09 PM

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?

Fr_Chuck · Jul 12, 2009, 07:17 PM

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

JudyKayTee · Jul 13, 2009, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by cleaninglady81

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 commited and no real evidence someone did the crime then no charges can be given RIGHT? or WRONG?

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?