12-28-2007, 05:23 AM
|
#26 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Lets play devils advocate here, and who better than the right wing robot devil.
The police go to serve a warrant.
Brother says shes not there, and won't give they a way to get in touch with her even though thats her known address.
He is in fact protecting a fugitive. Its in his rights not to give out her phone number, but that doesn't change it.
Brother is annoyed cop would say that he is harboring a fugitive, but its true.
Police tell the truth on what happens if they get a search warrant and shes there as the brother would be arrested. I'm not sure what a "dangerous felony warrant" is exactly, but my guess is that when 'dangerous' is in the title it will be at gunpoint when they make the arrest. This is done for the polices protection as well as those being arrested so no one does something stupid.
The cops then leave, not entering the premises and the sister is called by the brother and turns herself in.
Funny how often I've seen this sort of thing on COPS and its always so different from the officers side.
No one likes being bullied, and the cops tried to scare you, but no rights were violated and your sister turned herself in without incident. Sounds like the best possible outcome to me.
|
Ustwo, remember your stance in this matter?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108229
Herk, it is possible that the cops who challenged you were bluffing:
Quote:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=4&gl=us
....The difficult decisions for prosecutors lie at the margins of criminal involvement, when a family member has acted as an accessory, particularly as an accessory after the fact.3 Typical charging options in this scenario would be obstruction of justice or hindering prosecution, harboring a fugitive, or accessory after the fact for states that retain that charging option.
a) Exemptions for Family Members Harboring Fugitives
Remarkably, in fourteen states, prosecution of family members for harboring fugitives is not an option, regardless of the nature of the crime or the extent of the family member’s involvement. These states typically exempt spouses, parents and grandparents, children and grandchildren, <h3>and siblings from prosecution for providing assistance to a family member after the commission of a crime.</h3> An additional four states reduce liability for an immediate family member but do not exempt them from prosecution entirely. Florida’s statutory exemption for family members is one interesting example. It forbids prosecution of spouses, parents, grandparents, children, or grandchildren for helping an “offender avoid or escape detection, arrest or punishment,” with one important exception. The exemption does not apply if the primary offender is alleged to have committed child abuse or neglect or the murder of a child under the age of 18, “unless the court finds the person [claiming the exemption] is a victim of domestic violence.”
These statutes are significantly broader than the exemption which existed at common law, which forbade only the prosecution of a wife as an accessory, but not the prosecution of a husband for aiding his felon wife or the prosecution of other family members. Despite the popularity of the broader exemptions among many states, the Model Penal Code drafters rejected the inclusion of a family member exemption in its accessory provision, “in part on the ground that this is a factor that can be taken into account at sentencing.” The drafters also noted that “exemption rules create trial difficulties if the government bears the burden of proving that none of the specified relations exist.”
No federal law currently provides a family member with an exemption from prosecution. Some federal courts, however, have at least expressed sympathy to the pleas of family members charged with aiding an accused relative. For example, in United States v. Oley, although upholding the right of the government to charge a wife with harboring her fugitive husband, the court remarked that “[i]t would undoubtedly be difficult to obtain a conviction charging wives with harboring their husbands” and that “it might be regarded as inhuman and unnatural on the part of a wife to surrender her husband to the authorities and contrary to the instincts of human beings to do so.” Some states have grappled with the constitutionality of the family exemption. For example, in upholding Florida’s statute against an equal protection challenge, a Florida appeals court emphasized “society’s interest in safeguarding the family unit from unnecessary fractional pressures” and applauded the legislature’s decision to “confer[] immunity so that these individuals need never choose between love of family and obedience to the law.” The New Mexico Supreme Court similarly upheld its state statute against a constitutional challenge, but did not engage in any sustained analysis and instead simply stated that the statute’s classifications were reasonable and thus consistent with the Equal Protection Clause...
|
|
|
|