When the false report is made is immaterial. The crime is in giving the false report. Since our reluctant bride falsely reported to the Duluth police chief that she had been abducted, she is liable to be prosecuted for this crime.
Well, that answers that. I wasn’t aware at the OP that she had made any reports in Georgia.
The report was made via telephone, from New Mexico. At last report, the DA was looking into whether this circumstance created any jurisdictional problems.
My point here:
relates specifically to the bolded portion of GA code 16-10-26:
My point is that she should have known that her actions would have caused a report to the police and the resulting investigation. Under Georgia law, that knowlege would make her guilty even if she never personally called police anywhere. The DA’s job is to determine whether she was, at the time, a “reasonable person”, whether enough evidence exists to convict her and whether a conviction would serve any purpose.
BTW, add the following to the evidence list:
- she reportedly bought the bus ticket a week in advance.
Wouldn’t this apply to people whose responsability in the false report is more direct? For instance a person who would mention some imaginary crime that would then be reported? Or who asked someone to report said imaginary crime? Or who created a situation designed to let the authority believe a crime has been commited.
I mean : I know that in France a large number of adults are reported missing every year. The overwhelming majority of them just want to change their life without telling it to anybody. I’ve no reason to assume that the situation would be any different in the USA. In most cases, such a disapearance will cause the relatives to make a report to the police. So, if she could be prosecuted just for dissapearing (ignoring here the fake abduction issue), wouldn’t this kind of prosecution be commonplace?
clairobcur is right. The mere act of running off would not be enough to trigger criminal liability under the cited statute. A person’s disappearance does not necessarily imply that a crime has been committed (as this case demonstrates). So running off is not tantamaount to “causing a false report of a crime to be given.”
It is her phone conversation with the chief of police (wherein she reported that she had been kidnapped) which is the trigger for any potential criminal liability.
So how is the police chief going to prove that was Jennifer he was talking to on the phone? I’m a bit surprised that the cops haven’t gotten a hundred calls from people claiming to be Jennifer and that she’s been abducted by aliens, etc.
Also, is he saying that he believed her? If he did, he’s liable to make himself the laughingstock of the law enforcement community. If he didn’t believe her, I believe he was obligated, because he would have had sufficient cause to believe that a crime was being committed, to advise her of her rights.
I’m also wondering if the police followed their normal procedure in making such a big deal search like they did. This is the usual procedure when children are missing, but as far as I know, it’s different with adults.
I know of a guy who didn’t come home from work and the wife called the cops. They took notes but said there wouldn’t be much done right away except for checking the hospital and the jail records. Most adults showed up again in a few days.
And they were right. The guy had gotten drunk and shacked up somewhere with some woman and finally came home when he ran out of money. No big deal, except to the wife.