Question for someone in law enforcement

[MzDiz]

Just out of curiosity....

A guy that works with my boyfriend was just recently arrested for sexual assault allegedly committed in December. Can anyone tell me why it would take 5 months for them to arrest someone for a violent crime?

I don't watch enough cop shows.

 

[OhMari]

Mainly Paper work. There are so many legalities and the District Attorney wants to make sure they have a solid case. Plus, the DA may have a work over load, and he or she may just have gotten around to this particular case and found out they had enough evidence to press charges.

 

[piglet too]

Not enough evidence or no strong leads to suspect him?? Maybe they had to wait for DNA results?

 

[DizBelle]

They have to make sure they have enough evidence and a worthwhile case before getting an arrest warrant.

 

[brockash]

Also, the victim may have just now come forward. We have that happen a lot, especially with sexual offenses.

 

[Wishing on a star]

My guess is that, for whatever reasons, the alleged victim has just recently come forward and filed a complaint.

Edited to add, now I see the above post come in... same thoughts!

I really couldn't understand why the authorities would knowingly let a person suspected of a physical crime of this nature go without charges for that length of time.

You can make the arrest... and THEN you continue to develop the evidence. (collect DNA, fingerprints, etc. and await results)
Seems that this kind of thing usually follows the initial arrest?

I would imagine that, technically, (too much crime TV and news-stories! ) the authorities know that the odds of successfully arresting a suspect and successfully building a case are lessor and lessor with the passage of time.

I would be more likely to assume that the ALLEGED victims of such crimes might not find themselves capable of / willing to come forward for a myriad of reasons. (guilt, fear, shame, etc...)

I would still find the motive for coming forward to be suspect after this length of time.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...You can make the arrest... and THEN you continue to develop the evidence. (collect DNA, fingerprints, etc. and await results)
Seems that this kind of thing usually follows the initial arrest?...

I agree, if the DA thinks that there is enough evidence already available to convict. But this delay may be because the accused has a right to a speedy trial, which is the main reason that they like to have a case locked down pretty tight before making an arrest. In NY, when demanded, the trial must start within 6 months. Not much time to build a case.

Once the arrest is made and charges filed, the accused's rights kick in. If they demand a speedy trial, you might be forced to go to trial before the case against him/her is solid enough for a conviction. The accused's lawyer gets to see all of the evidence. If the lawyer thinks that the DA is still digging out of necessity, he will push for an early trial date. If the lawyer thinks that they have a solid case, the defense would not ask for a speedy trial so they have more time to build a defense.

 

[tonilea]

Unlike CSI or NCIS, most departments don't have a crime lab waiting for the case they are currently working on. DH has to send evidence to the State Crime Lab and then it can take months to get the results back. Of course, evidence is always getting pushed back of more important cases - kinda like a hospital triage. Not that all cases aren't important, but I think murders get a higher priority.

 

[FireDancer]

In addition to what has already been mentioned speculation does not equal evidence which, in turn, does not equal guilt until a jury says it does or a defendant pleas on the case.

Had more time been spent between allegation and arrest in, say, a certain Duke lacrosse case perhaps some people would still have jobs.

 

[MzDiz]

Thanks for all the answers. I do get that life isn't like TV. It's driving me bonkers that all the guys at my boyfriend's work are talking about how he *must* be innocent because it took them so long to arrest him. Their reasoning - Jerry Springer can get DNA results in a few days. They say that if he's dangerous he should be locked up. Honestly... I'll spare you nice people the rest of the garbage they're spewing.
For the record, the girl came forward that night and went to the police.

 

[tonilea]

In addition to what has already been mentioned speculation does not equal evidence which, in turn, does not equal guilt until a jury says it does or a defendant pleas on the case.

Had more time been spent between allegation and arrest in, say, a certain Duke lacrosse case perhaps some people would still have jobs.

So true! Knowing something and being able to prove it in a court of law are two entirely different things.




OP, I hope I didn't offend with the TV reference, but you would be suprised how many people just don't get the realities of state crime labs.

 

[KandD]

Gather all of the evidence and statements, write the warrant, have the warrant signed (which probably sat on someone's desk for a while), and then serve the warrant (which probably took a while as well).

 

[Wishing on a star]

I still say that, even if the 'alleged victim' had come forward back when, That doesn't mean that she didn't back out of following thru with the charges.

Some of the thoughts here really are off/confused.....

Just how are the authorities supposed to run DNA without a sample FROM THE SUSPECT!!!! And, how are they supposed to get a sample from the suspect without even pressing charges. I know I wouldn't be submitting to any criminal DNA test until I was charged and had contracted the services of a lawyer. I don't think most people would.

I still say the the delay is most likely due to the action, or in-action, of the alleged victim.