They’ve put a nice reward out for information leading to Brian Laundrie’s arrest: $30,000 in rewards available for tips leading to Laundrie’s arrest
Never fear. Dog the Bounty Hunter is now on the case.
(This is not an Onion article.)
Diamond and Tionda Bradley
The news has mentioned Laundrie might be on the Appalachian Trail. He’s hiked it before.
I think there’s a lot of people that hike it? You would typically see and interact with other hikers nearly every day? Google indicates Cell service is available in most areas.
It doesn’t sound like a good place to hide when your face is published everywhere.
Hiking the Appalachian Trail has been on my bucket list for a long time. I wouldn’t want to go with winter only a couple months away.
I’ve always wanted to hike the Appalachian trail as well, but the thought of running into people like Laundrie would make me want to go as part of a group.
In this desperate moment, the nation must turn to our foremost expert on using the Appalachian Trail to disappear from public scrutiny: Mark Sanford.
He was listed as the only person of interest. Yes that’s legally different than being a “suspect” but he clearly knew he was sought by authorities and retained a lawyer.
I would think his actions indicate he’s a flight risk.
How likely is it that Brian Laundrie will be apprehended? That’s assuming, of course, that he wasn’t alligator chow. After he went “missing,” I thought he’d probably committed suicide, but I’ve changed my mind, mostly because his parents didn’t report him missing for several days, but also because he left without his cell phone and wallet.
When I read “hiking the Appalachian Trail”, I think of this every single time.
I had actually posted a question along these lines some years back - our kids’ nanny was going to help them do some back-to-school shopping and I was planning on giving her my credit card to do so. This was 12 years ago. The upshot was that if it got spotted, it might cause trouble. Though of course it’s unlikely to get spotted, unless there’s something truly unusual about the transaction.
I don’t know whether it’s illegal, or merely against the cardholder agreement.
I read a report that the police went to Laundrie’s house again to collect DNA evidence, suggesting they “found something” like a body part. However that was more than a day ago. Making him a suspect suggests the police think he’s still alive.
On a related note: if living “on the lam” in the woods somewhere somehow better than living in prison? If he’s alive and in hiding, is that somehow making things better for himself?
Scalia: Mere factual death is no reason not to consider that a person is fleeing.
On the question of permission to use the van and debit card. Is that permission rescinded upon death even if you do not know the owner is dead?
Just to be clear, it would be unlikely in the extreme that you or the nanny would get prosecuted under the situation you describe. But in a situation like Laundrie, they will use it as they can. The relevant statutes make it illegal to access a computer database, which the financial transaction system would be, “without authorization.”
However the statute isn’t clear where “authorization” comes from. Say you gave me your SDMB username and password and I logged in. Clearly that would be a violation of the board rules, but is it enough that you authorized me to access the database or does the SDMB have to give me the authorization?
If I had to shoot from the hip, I would say that in the Wall O’ Text User Agreement that somewhere in there you have agreed that your user/pass combo is for you and you only and you agree not to let anyone else use it (same with a PIN). So therefore you are unable to give “authorization.” But as I said, I don’t know.
If you don’t know the person is dead, you would have no reason to assume permission is rescinded. IANAL, but I assume that you would be in the clear up until the permission was rescinded by the new owner of the vehicle and/or bank account.
The police came to his parents’ house. They said he was there and they told the police to pound sand and speak with their attorney.
Look, I agree with the facts on the ground assessment that he will flee, but I don’t like the way the courts approach it. I have a 14th Amendment right to freely move around the country. I have a 5th Amendment right not to speak to the police. I have an 8th Amendment right to reasonable bail. It seems that I cannot exercise all three but must choose to give up one or more.
That make sense however in my experience Logic and Law are usually only tangentially related. I could totally see where the Law would say that upon death The Estate now owns the van and it did not give permission or something like that.
It still wouldn’t be a larceny or a theft. That requires a “taking.” And if he had possession of it the whole time, then theft or larceny wouldn’t be a proper charge. The estate would have a civil claim against him to return it, but I can’t see the crime, especially if he didn’t know she was dead, and even if he did (although as @Magiver points out, I could see an argument that an implied condition on the use of the van was “you will not murder me and keep it for yourself”)
If they didn’t produce their son then that poses an interesting scenario. I think the police were in a position to detain him for a short period of time on suspicion of foul play.
On what authority? They had no arrest warrant, and even after that they publicly announced that he was not a suspect and that they just wanted to talk to him—a thing that his parents previously informed them that he was unwilling to do.
Given that information, why can’t a free person decide to go camp in the woods? What requirement says that I must stay within X feet of my house on such vague information–so as not to be considered a “flight risk”? There is also no requirement that I watch TV or check the news to see what the police expect of me–that’s why you cannot hail someone into court without personal service. If someone emails me a complaint then I “know” that they want me in court, but the law says too bad, it’s got to be done the right way.
Except in these situations. I agree with you that he is a flight risk. However, they need to file the proper paperwork so it is done in such a way that perfectly legal, protected constitutional activity is not used as a reason to jail someone without bail.