Slight hijack, but such an interesting story I couldn’t resist:
A recent Arkansas case sought to dismiss drunk driving charges against a driver, claiming that the only testimony used to convict him was the police officer’s, and under the facts of the case, the officer was guilty of letting the guy drive drunk, and was thus an accomplice to the crime! (The general rule is that accomplice testimony cannot alone serve as the evidence to sustain a conviction).
The driver was next to his car, talking to a woman, when the police officer first saw him. The officer recognized the man and knew his license was suspended. He suspected the guy would try to drive and, sure enough, a few moments later the suspect hopped into the car and drove off. The officer immediately pursued, and the car was stopped just two doors down the street. The officer noticed an open can of beer, and after failing several sobriety tests the driver was arrested for drunk driving and driving on a suspended license.
In court, the driver argued that the police officer was an accomplice to the accused’s offense because the officer testified that he “knew” the accused was going to drive illegally when he first saw him, but failed to take immediate steps to prevent him from doing so. Thus, the argument went, the police officer, having a duty to prevent the commission of all crimes, was an accomplice to the crime; consequently, the evidence is insufficient because the only evidence against the accused was obtained from the police officer, an “accomplice” whose testimony must be corroborated for the evidence to be legally sufficient.
They weren’t under an obligation as far as I know. In the cases I’m aware of the laws that require reporting do not cover clergy. They generally cover therapists, teachers, etc.
There might be some states that require clergy to report abuse, but it is not a universal rule.
The cop was not an ‘accomplice’ in the eyes of the law, since, the statement “the cop knew the guy was going to drive” is not really a statement of ‘fact’, but in the cops opinion, he suspected that the man might do so.
He only would have ‘known’ a crime was about to occur at the point when it did occur.
Had the other guy said to the officer “hi Joe, I’m about to drive off now, ok?” then that would have been an accomplice.