In a very recent episode of COPS(yea, yea) there was a segment that started as a domestic violence call. A woman told the officer that she came home to her long time boyfriend, and he grabbed her breasts and tried to initiate sex but she wasn’t interested and he smelled of booze. They then argued and he restrained her while his dog attacked her.
He was arrested and charged with sexual assault and battery. She said no he didn’t to the cop, and the cop said sorry but that is a text book case of sexual assault.
She then promised her boyfriend she would do her best to get the charge dismissed, and then the cop allowed them to kiss.:dubious:(is it standard procedure to allow sexual assault victims to kiss their assailant?)
The whole thing was pretty strange, can police just decide to charge someone with sexual assault even when the “victim” is saying no it was not?
Many states have passed laws that require officers to arrest the apparent perpetrator of domestic violence, and any officer (especially on-camera, mind you,) who chose not to make that arrest would risk disciplinary action up to and including job loss. Before the passage of this type of law, domestic violence was notoriously difficult to prosecute, because victims were prone to not press charges, or to refuse to testify, or to drop charges - either out of love, or fear. (And remember, spouses can’t be compelled to testify against one another.) The LEO is required to act with an abundance of caution. In this case, did the girlfriend have visible injuries? If so, the LEO had no choice. Someone was going to jail.
In my experience, yes. Me and my sister termed the incidence involving a friend as such (by normal deduction) but when we went to the station, the first thing the officer asked was, “How do you know it was sexual assault?”
Our friend was simply assaulted by a man, as it turns out.
She had a dog bite, and she did want her boyfriend charged with battery(which he was). On that there seemed little issue or argument from any party, he pretty much was going to be charged with SOMETHING for restraining her and allowing his dog to bite her pretty bad.
She didn’t want her boyfriend charged with sexual assault though, and maintained she was not sexually assaulted. She had mentioned the breast thing not as her complaint but explaining how the fight got started(she was angry he was drunk).
Okay, so she described an action that could possibly be construed as sexual assault, which happened during a domestic altercation. The description of that action is on camera. The officer really doesn’t have much choice - he needs to book the boyfriend for something relating to that action. It’s up to the district attorney’s office to decide whether to prosecute the boyfriend on that charge.
There’s nothing unique about sex crimes here. Whether you have been a victim of a crime - any crime - doesn’t depend on whether you see yourself as a victim, or whether you see what was done to you as a crime. It just depends on whether it is, in fact, a crime.
Having said that, in most cases it will be next to impossible to mount a prosecution, or get a conviction, without the co-operative testimony of the victim, so if they bring charges which the victim doesn’t agree with, and won’t co-operate with, the prospects of success are usually not good. And this will undoubtedly influence any decision about proceeding or not.
Well police can do anything, they don’t have to be asked to do it.
See, the police officer can connect the dog bites to be an attempt to make her consent, which makes it attempted rape, and assault, (and perhaps a third charge to do with the dog… they may not put that to the jury, as it gives the jury the desire to find guilty on the lesser ,distracting charge, they may only give the jury the attempted rape charge… )
The lady may go to the station and complain to a superior that the dog bites was not part of rape.
That the dog bites were not an attempt to make her consent.
There may be a concern that it would take a lawyer to decide
if retaliation after being rejected is a sexual crime still ?
In my state there is “attempted rape” AND “attempted indescent assault”.
The essential element is that there is a violent act which was done in an effort to subdue or ‘obtain consent under duress’ the target.
To the cop’s eyes - she said he grabbed her breasts and she said no. That would be grounds enough for sexual assault, unless the DA or the judge later decides otherwise, regardless of what (non-sexual) happened afterwards. Especially if he kept doing it for a while after she initially said no…
He (his lawyer) might argue, based on the relationship and past history, that she could not call the first grabs “uninvited”, but certainly if she said no and he kept trying for a while, that is sexual assault. Whether she’ll testify and whether he’ll be found guilty is a different story, but based on the evidence there was reasonable grounds for arrest and charge.
The episode was season 26 episode 04 aired Oct 05, 2013 “Pistol Packin’ Families”(it is the last segment and does not involve a pistol) if anyone was curious. It is hard to describe but it was clear the breast grabbing was not a complaint she had or intended to be pursued.
REALLY?! Then I would advise every couple that ever deals with cops to watch their mouth as any stray comment can result in a SA charge and maybe conviction. (She grabbed my crotch and I told her to stop etc) Which is pretty damn serious as it would require sex offender registration etc.
It used to be standard practice for cops to go to domestic dispute calls in pairs. One cop would take the husband for a walk around the block, the other one would counsel the woman to be more obedient to her husband. Lather, rinse, repeat, until someone ended up seriously injured or dead. Yes, the cops COULD have taken the aggressor in, but the custom at the time was to just try to smooth things over unless there was some serious injury, even if the person who was abused wanted to make a complaint.
Crimes are not just attacks on the victim(s); they are attacks on society. That’s why the parties in criminal litigation are the defendant and the state/crown/whatever. The complaining witness doesn’t have to press charges (or even cooperate, if there is independent evidence of guilt) for a successful prosecution.
This is going to be an electrifying case. We’ll find out if the power of the victim’s testimony is able to overcome the jury’s resistance, though usually there is at least one who has a high capacitance for mercy and has to be inducted into the prevailing current loop of justice.
The police can do pretty much whatever they want. They’ve got badges and guns. In this case, there may even be some basis for their decision: according to your description he “tried to initiate sex”. I don’t know what that means, exactly, but depending on exactly what she told them, and (of course) the law in whatever state they were filming, what she told them may have met the statutory definition of sexual assault (or at least attempted sexual assault).
The whole process (where I am) is 1.) the police officer makes an arrest, 2.) a magistrate reviews it, to determine if there’s probable cause, and to set bail. 3.) the defendant either makes bail (get out) or doesn’t (stays in jail). 4.) The prosecutor reviews the case, to make an initial determination about whether they want to accept it. 5.) (In the case of a felony) the prosecutor brings the case to a grand jury to determine whether the prosecution should go forward. If “yes”, they’ll issue an indictment. 6.) there’s a plea bargaining process, during which the defendant (or his lawyer) try to reach some sort of agreement about what should should happen in the case. 7.) If they’re unable to reach an agreement, the case goes to a jury to decide what should happen.
In other words, the fact the officer made an arrest is just the first step in the process. The defendant’s case could still be rejected, no-billed, dismissed, reduced to a lesser charge, or end in an acquittal.
Unfortunately (as they say in Texas) you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.
Perhaps there is some interpretation over the “they then argued and he restrained her”. Was that a continued attempt to coerce sex? Or was the restraint to prevent violence against himself after the fight started, and the dog biting incidental?
The cop is called out, some disturbance occurred, he has grounds for an arrest. He is trying to interpret her story as to what occurred and find the best charges. But any actual charges will be reviewed by the prosecution to determine if they wish to pursue it or if the charges have merit. It will also be reviewed by a judge at the preliminary hearing to see if the charges make sense.
It’s not so strange… Police are on the scene to investigate whether or not a crime has taken place, and it’s pretty certain (i.e., I’m guessing) that police know enough of the salient points in any crime to make a good judgement call in whether or not an arrest is warranted (no pun intended).
Also, in the particular case, the woman had her jugs grabbed and the man tried to get sex from her, and she wasn’t interested. The man became violent…(I know that more was involved, but…) If nothing else, this is textbook behavior in a domestic criminal assault, as most officers will tell you (I’m guessing again).
First off, it sounds like sexual assault to me, too.
Second off, the cop probably knows the letter of the law better than the average person on the street. Consider an analogous situation:
Cops go to a house for some innocuous reason — noise complaint from the neighbors or something. While talking to the resident in the living room, they discover that the resident’s girlfriend is locked in the bedroom. She says he’d locked her in there for two days to punish her for something. The cops arrest the boyfriend for kidnapping. The girlfriend says, “It wasn’t kidnapping. He just locked me up.” What she doesn’t realize is that in that jurisdiction, kidnapping is defined as “detaining or transporting a person against his or her will.”
An arrest and or an arrest warrant requires probable cause. Although the 4th AM is silent about arrest warrants, as it mentions only search warrants, the criteria is the same, per the SC.
As long as PC exists, a DV arrest can be made without a warrant, even though it may be a misdemeanor not committed in the officer’s presence, however, here we have a sexual assault charge. I am sure that is a felony and requires no warrant once lawful entry was gained.
A victim’s testimony of non aggression may possibly help the defendant at trial, but it does not necessarily negate PC to arrest.
Ah, you figured that out… Yes, there have been plenty of threads here with the admonishment “don’t talk to the cops”. If they are looking for an excuse to charge someone with something, it does not take much to make whatever you’ve said into a charge.
Also don’t forget the “surcharge principle”, the DA will lay an excessive number of charges, pile on the threats of decades in prison, then offer a deal to drop some; thus increasing his conviction rate without the pesky need to actually do work in court to prove guilt.
As usual with such questions people trying to answer with guesses.
In most if not all states there are mandatory arrest statutes for domestic violence. Certain offenses are included in the domestic violence laws. Sexual assault and its forms are included. Because of how things were handled in the past domestic violence issues are handled with or without the cooperation of the victim. The elements of the crime were met and an arrest was made.
No the police can not do anything. They have to act within the law.
It seems that most of those answering are under the mistaken assumption that sexual assault has to equal rape. In most if not all states there are various levels and types of sexual assault. The circumstances of this incident as stated in my state would be Criminal Sexual Contact which is a 4th degree crime. I don’t know where that episode was filmed but I have a feeling we would find a similar statute there.
This was not a traffic stop or someone asking for directions. Its not a matter of stray comments. They were called there on a domestic violence call. Unless she wants to continue to be a victim it is in her best interest to cooperate.
This is GQ so its probably best not to say “it would require sex offender registration…” Upon conviction it might. It might not. In my state it certainly would not. In order to be compelled to register under Megan’s Law in NJ, a conviction for Criminal Sexual Contact would have to be only if the victim is a minor. It would vary from state to state.
