I'm an ordinary citizen with knowledge of a crime. When MUST I volunteer that to the police?

Factual Questions
1

No, I did not forget to type Need answer fast! above; nor am I asking for genuine legal advice. This is entirely hypothetical.

As I understand it, there are certain situations in which a person must report to the police his knowledge of a crime: for example, a schoolteacher who notes signs of child abuse being suffered by a student. But it seems to me that the existence of such requirements implies that, in general, we are not obligated to volunteer our knowledge of such things. Is that true?

Here’s an example. Let’s say I have an acquaintance, Peter, whom I know to have good reasonto hate another man, Norman. (Peter believes Norman killed his girlfriend years earlier, but through a miscarriage of justice Norman never served a day in jail. One day, while reading the paper, I read that Norman has been murdered. Peter was questioned and released because he had an alibi, but I happen to know that his alibi is bullshit. But the police, for whatever reason, have never actually asked me about said alibi.

Are there any jurisdictions in which I have a legal duty to come forward?

2

There is a crime called accessory after the fact but it’s not common to be charged with that.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00000003----000-.html

I think by not telling the cops you are helping the person evade being arrested.

3

Well, sure, if they come and ask you. But does AatF apply if they don’t? In the scenario I gave, I haven’t been questioned; nor has Peter asked me for help; nor do I actually know that he’s guilty of it; I just strongly suspect it.

4

This is interesting 'cause I read an article with true crime writer, Harold Schechter. In it he wrote that he never used to pay for information. He said, it was something that was unethical to do

But then one time against his better judgement he paid for information. And he hit pay dirt. The lady told him everything after getting a $100 payment, that lead to his book, which lead to the person in jail getting off and getting the real killer.

Since then he said he took a case by case basis on whether or not to pay and he said he seems to feel people will withhold information unless they are compensated for it.

Now what should be mentioned in all these cases, the cops NEVER questioned the person he did. It’s not that these people denied knowledge to the cops, or covered something up. They were simply never asked or connected with the case, till Schechter, a writer, who was investigating the cold case or case he was writing about decided to slueth on his own.

When asked why the didn’t come forward, the answer is always, no one asked me so, I figured it must not have been important. In this case it’s hard, if not impossible to charge and make it stick, someone with accessory after the fact. Because there is no intent to cover it up.

5

As is typical with legal questions there are at least 51 possible answers. But here the federal law:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 3

Whoever, **knowing that an offense **against the United States has been committed, **receives, relieves, comforts or assists **the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

So, in your hypothetical: no crime. You didn’t “know” the crime was comitted, and you didn’t relieve, comfort or assist him.

Here’s Massachusetts:

Chapter 274: Section 4. Accessories after fact; punishment; relationship as defence; cross-examination; impeachment

Section 4. Whoever, after the commission of a felony, **harbors, conceals, maintains or assists **the principal felon or accessory before the fact, or gives such offender any other aid, **knowing that he has committed a felony **or has been accessory thereto before the fact, with intent that he shall avoid or escape detention, arrest, trial or punishment, shall be an accessory after the fact, and, except as otherwise provided, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than seven years or in jail for not more than two and one half years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.

So, pretty much the same thing.

The thing is, traditionally, you need mens rea and actus reus for a crime - guilty mind and guilty act. We just don’t put many affirmative requirements on people.

6

There’s also the English common law misdemeanor of misprision of felony, which doesn’t seem to have been widely applied in the U.S.

7

From the Ohio ORC:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.22

Not sure how soon you would have to report the crime…

8

How is that relevant to my hypothetical? I don’t KNOW that Peter killed Norman. I just know his alibi’s BS.

9

Hmm, but you do know that he lied to the police when he gave them a phony alibi. Is it a felony for Peter to lie to the police when they’re investigating him?

10

Your hypothetical doesn’t really fit any of the “must report” statutes, because all of the statutes of which I’m aware only obligate reporting when you have knowledge of a felony. Making a false statement to the police is a misdemeanor in Texas (Penal Code section 37.08), but there’s no statute that requires you to report knowledge of a misdemeanor. And in your hypo, you don’t actually know that he committed the felony, you only know that he lied to the police; for all you know, he was having an extra-marital affair and lied to conceal it.

As for felonies, Texas has a provision similar to Ohio’s. Texas Penal Code Sec. 38.171:

And here’s a related one, Texas Penal Code 43.27:

So, that’s the section that requires, say, a Wal-Mart photo developer to report to the police when they develop a roll of film that has pictures of a sexual performance by a child, or something else “obscene” (the subchapter in question is “Obscenity”). Note that no penalty is defined for failing to report, nor does it even say that failing to report is an “offense”; at best, that’d make it a Class C misdemeanor, fine only (applying Tex. Pen. Code sec. 6.01 and 12.03(b)).