I’m skeptical that refraining from charging him with murder has significant strategic benefit. It would be one thing if they knew where he was and thought he might talk, but he already lawyered up as soon as he got home and fled before the body was even found. Surely they don’t think he’s going to hear on the news that he’s only being charged with credit card fraud at this time and think “well all right then; I’ll just head over to the precinct and clear this up.”
IANAProsecutor, but I would agree it probably doesn’t have significant benefit, but what experience with prosecutors I do have is they are a conservative and cautious lot, and I can see them holding off on filing for an arrest warrant on suspicion of murder for any marginally perceived benefit.
Another thing could also be jurisdictional, while the assumption is you charge the murder in the jurisdiction her body was recovered in, with a found body case there may be ancillary factors at play and you may have professional courtesy going on between a few prosecutors who might have jurisdiction and are holding off on filing charges until they come to an agreement as to who will file.
Obviously there is a lot going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to. Their goal right now is to: 1) be able to hold him when they find him, and 2) be able to search his person and his reach and grab area for evidence. Charging him with a bullet proof charge like this guarantees #1 and #2.
But they will still have to move quickly and assemble PC for the homicide. Even if they arrest him, he will be released on his own recognizance if the only evidence they have against him is a silly little credit card PIN violation. I’m sure that some very smart lawyers are planning it meticulously.
I wouldn’t think so. He’s already shown his willingness to flee.
Flee from what? The warrant just came out. When there was no warrant out for him, he was a free man permitted to go anywhere he wants just like you or me.
Hey, I watch Law & Order. Don’t mess with me! 
I saw a legal proceeding of elder neglect-related death get rolling with the use of the deceased elder’s card a day later. That was the easiest way to start the case moving forward and have reason to pick up the perpetrators.
Questions:
What exactly is a PIN violation? The unauthorized use of someone’s PIN? But then it would still be felony theft, right? (I don’t know what the $ threshold is at the federal level. In WY, it’s $1,000.) Or are you thinking it’s a PIN violation if it was Petito’s debit card, but not if it was someone else’s?
Also, do being a flight risk and an (as yet) uncharged suspect in another crime weigh into the decision as to whether or not someone is released on his own recognizance? I can’t see a judge deciding to release Laundrie when he’s already been on the run or in hiding, yet there are no charges other than the unauthorized debit card use against him at this point.
I don’t think your parents would be OK if you used the car to do donuts on the house lawn. Maybe rob a few banks with it. But not their lawn.
You could apply the same principal to the use of her bank cards. OK to use while they’re on vacation but not independent of that event.
It now also gives them probable cause to charge anyone who is harboring him, or concealing his whereabouts, making it harder for him to stay hidden.
And the tech guy never says “Sorry, I thought you wanted to see the blurry one.”
Fair points. I had forgotten about the restrictive federal bail laws. They have filed a motion for a detainer (no bail) on Laundrie as they claim he is a flight risk. But I still contend that prior to the warrant being issued, he has a right as an American to hide or go wherever he wants. That shouldn’t be held against him on a bail application, but federal bail case law has gone far beyond reasonable.
I don’t know that you can make that assumption. They were engaged. It is not an unreasonable assumption to say that they shared the van and shared the account even though both were nominally hers.
IMHO, you cannot make the assumption that he didn’t have permission to use the van or the account unless you first make the assumption that he harmed her or abandoned her. And if you don’t have PC for the former, I don’t see PC for the latter.
That’s just a talking head making a WAG like the rest of us. Sure, he has prior experience, but he has no information on this case.
And, despite my earlier comments, I am not convinced that it is legal to use someone else’s debit/credit card even if you have that individual’s permission. The permission to access that computer system (VISA/Mastercard/electronic banking) may rest with the institutions themselves and may not be delegable by an individual card holder.
There are two reports of people giving Laundrie car rides on August 29th after seeing him hitchhiking alone, with him reportedly offering US$200 for a 10 mile ride.
Why was he hitchhiking when he, presumably, had the van?
I think the part about the bank account is an unreasonable assumption. If you have a bank account and it’s not joint, you are not supposed to give your card to anyone else or share the PIN. That’s the case even if you are married and are merely giving it to your spouse.
I’m not seeing any kind of story he can make to explain his use of the van or cards when combined with her disappearance and subsequent murder. It’s not that they just parted ways, it’s that neither relayed any information to family and friends that would back up a story.
What’s he going to say? She was perfectly fine when he abandoned her in grisly country with a can of spam and a tent. And she wanted him to have her van and bank card because she’s a hardcore survivalist.
Do you think that risk of flight can only be established on the basis of someone having previously fled in the face of an arrest warrant?
Or… might it be demonstrated by one having a clearly demonstrated propensity to roam about with little or no ties to any particular community? Because the lawfulness of the act doesn’t change the underlying fact that he certainly seems to have a knack for engaging in behaviors that might allow him to elude authorities and make himself long-term unavailable for trial.
“Your honor, my client didn’t need the threat of arrest to cause him to flee from his place of residence, a home which he does not personally own and so has no maintenance responsibilities for or ownership stake in as valuable property. He is not only able, but uncommonly willing to sever all ties with his family and community and disappear for days or weeks on end whether or not there is a warrant out for his arrest.” Seems like a pretty risky argument to make.
That said, shifting from academic discussion to policy, I think there are serious problems with bail in this country and we shouldn’t be locking nearly so many people up before trial as we do.
You can certainly give it to your spouse or your caregiver or your business manager or a friend. It’s yours and you can do whatever the hell you want with it. It may be ill advised and you may suffer consequences but that doesn’t mean you aren’t supposed to do it.