Thewoman reporting crime to Officer Jones is guilty of the grossmisdemeanor because she is telling lies. She approaches the policeofficer and informs him that she has been assaulted by a masked manwhom she did not identify his or her gender and race. In addition,she tells the officer that the perpetrator injured her as she wasmaking away with her wallet. However, it later emerges that therobbery victim gave misleading information to the police because shewas a domestic violence victim. The United States Constitution, anindividual can be charged with a misdemeanor if he or shedeliberately circulates, reports or conveys false information. Inaddition, an individual can also be charged for a misdemeanor offencein case he or she spreads or starts false warning or report of apotential or expired event of an emergency, crime, fire, catastropheor explosion with the knowledge that the information given is cancause public alarm, distress, or retaliation (Ross, 2012). Forexample, a woman’s report that she has been assaulted by anunidentified person wearing a ski-mask and armed with a gun enhancedthe police officers risk alarm. Jones was aware that he was in a highcrime area, but the woman’s report automatically increased hisvigil. Once he saw a person who roughly matched the omen’sdescription, he suspected that she he could be the suspect thegun-wielding suspect that injured the victim. Besides, he noted thatthe suspect’s pocket was swollen thereby, motivating him to shootthe suspect on the spot.
Thecivilian woman that reported a false crime to Officer Jones violatedchapter 47, part one of the US code 1038, which deals with unfoundedinformation and hoaxes. The law states that an individual can becharged with an offence of the criminal violation. The code alsostates that a court of law may jail such persons for a term notexceeding five years or fine them up to $3,000. Both penalties mayapply in some cases. However, the victim in this instance would becharged under section two of the code 1038 since her misleadinginformation made Officer Jones cause critical body injury after heshot the victim (Ross, 2012).
Thedetectives investigating the case discovers finally finds that herhusband had abused the woman who had alleged that she was mugged.According to the USA Penal Code 273.5, it is a criminal offence foranyone to cause physical injury in either present or previoussignificant persons such as a divorced spouse, cohabitant partner andchild among other persons. The victim was bleeding profusely from alaceration on both her lip and head, which implies that her husbandhad committed a criminal offence through inflicting injuries.
Thewoman reporting the attack could be charged with a crime ofwithholding battery information. According to the 18 U.S. CodeChapter 110A, a woman who deliberately fails to report spousal abuseviolates the National Domestic violence. Domestic abuse reduces thecapacity of the victim to protect him or herself from possibledamage. In the United States, the offence of preventing regulatoryagencies, prosecutors, police and regulatory agencies counts as“obstruction of justice”. Obstruction of justice offence varieswidely. The magnitude of the victim’s crime was serious because sheclaimed her attacker was armed and carrying a gun, a report thatincreased Officer Jone’s vigilance as he was expecting an armedgangster to attack him any time (Ross, 2012).
Finally,the shot victim can open a civil lawsuit against the officer who shothim. According to USA’s fourth amendment, the law prohibits policefrom seizures, cover stops and searches that encompass detentions andfull arrests. The bill explicitly states that the police officers arebanned from using excessive force, false arrests and conductingunconstitutional searches. Officer Jones can be charged with thecrime of subjecting the shot victim in unwarranted search. Besides,he used excessive force to suppress who had already stopped after theofficer instructed him to surrender. The USA’s 1983 penal codeforty-two is based on “Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights”.The victim shot was not armed, and he had not resisted arrest.Moreover, Officer Jones had not directed the victim to keep his handsat a precise location where he could see them quickly (Ross, 2012).
Asuitable law case for this case study includes the “Duke Lacrossecase”. The case is based on an African-American student calledCrystal Gail Mangum. She was a North Carolina Central Universitystudent, an escort, stripper and dancer. In 2006, she deceitfullyclaimed that three players from the “Duke Blue Devils men`slacrosse team”, had raped her during an indoor party. Theallegation prompted the Duke University to cancel two games the teamwas supposed to participate (Yaeger & Pressler, 2007). Inaddition, the team was exempted from the season competition while thepresident of the team pressured the coach to resign. However, oneyear later – in 2007, Roy Cooper, North Carolina Attorney General,upturned the cases. He claimed that the players were punished andlabeled rapist based prejudgment of facts (Ross, 2012).
Ross,D.L. (2012). CivilLiability in Criminal Justice.Routledge.
Yaeger,D., & Pressler, M. (2007). It`snot about the truth: The untold story of the Duke lacrosse case andthe lives it shattered.New York: Threshold Editions.