In many crime procedurals, they say that a missing person is assumed alive until a body is found. Is this true in real law enforcement?
No. In fact, several people have been convicted of murder without their victim’s body ever having been found. A recent famous case is Hans Reiser. (After his conviction, he disclosed the location of the body in exchange for a reduction in sentence.)
Additionally, even when no crime is suspected, a missing person can be declared legally dead without producing a body. A recent famous case of that is Steve Fossett.
But these examples don’t disprove the statement that missing people are assumed alive - assumptions are usually rebuttable, meaning that you can establish the contrary if you have sufficient evidence to support it. Surely, in the cases you list there was evidence produced that Reiser’s victim was indeed killed by Reiser, and Steve Fossett was indeed dead; but until that point, the asusmption might still have held.
But in the OP the question is about whether or not a missing person is assumed to be alive “until a body is found”. The examples given show that a missing person may be presumed to be dead, even when a body has not been found.
OK, that is correct. Maybe there is a presumption that a missing person is alive, and there are several means of rebutting that presumption, only one of which is finding the body.
That brings us back to the question: Does the initial presumption exist in the first place? I would very much say so. The very existence of a procedure to declare a missing person dead shows that such a presumption exists - it is this declaration of death that overrides and rebuts the initial presumption of the person being alive.
It is outside of exceptional circumstances (which are admittedly quite a few) difficult to declare someone *legally *dead until you find a body or other evidence which makes it highly improbable that the person is in fact still alive.
Note I said legally. Practically speaking it is easier for the police during investigation to move on the assumption that the person has been killed or is dead if the circumstances make it seem likely.
Remember, the law, procedure and practice are complementary to each other, but are distinct.
I read the OP entirely differently.
My interpretation is that the OP was asking if police normally assume that anyone who is missing is alive, so that they will keep searching for the person until proven otherwise.
I believe that’s true. How active the search is after a long time or if the person is an adult who has gone missing without evidence of foul play* is the big question. But yes, the police do assume that missing people are alive and search for them.
*or fowl play if they were known to be chicken. Sorry, had that as a typo originally.
If thats the case, then yes the police will start off with the assumption that the person is alive unless or until evidence is shown which makes it unlikely s/he is so still. That evidence does not need a body. It can be say a situation where a person has been missing for several days with no ransom note or other communication and there is no indication of any problems that may make them leave suddenly or information about an unexpected trip being taken.
This is the spirit I meant my question.