Does an officer have to investigate both sides of a?

Question

crime..meaning..does he have to talk to the defendant or can he just charge the person with out even getting thier side of the story or even meeting the person...thanks

Answer 1

Both sides of the story has to be obtained to make a professional decision. Of course that only applies when both people are there on the scene.

Answer 2

To answer your question specifically, no, an officer does not, technically, have to investigate anything at all. They, just like any private person, can charge anybody with any crime they honestly belive was committed. Once a person is charged with a crime, the prosecution needs to come up with convincing evidence that party is in fact guilty. Investigating both "sides" does not enter into it.

That being said, a charge that is made without evidence will be immediately thrown out of court. Any officer who makes a habit of filing charges without investigating will not go very far in his/her career. If the other "side" has strong evidence which the officer disregarded when filing charges, that may result in the other "side" winning the case.

If a police officer is actually aware of exculpatory (innocence-proving) evidence and does not reveal this to the court, then they themselves can be charged with obstruction of justice. However, the officer is under no obligation to go out and look for such evidence. That is the job of the defense attorney.

Answer 3

Most officers will reply that they don't investigate "sides," they just try to find out what happened. That is both true and false. The true part is that they really do attempt to not take sides, but it's also false because crime VICTIMS call the cops and stand around to talk to the cops and CRIMINALS run away and don't talk to the cops. So in most cases, they only get one side.

Where both sides are available, it is good police practice to talk to every person they can find. Sometimes officers think they "have enough" and sometimes they get lazy, so sometimes both sides don't get a full investigation. They don't "HAVE TO" do anything once they (in their own mind) believe that a crime was probably committed and they know who probably did it. That's "probable cause" and on a bad day that's "enough" for the investigator to close the file and move on.

Answer 4

It is always good to hear both sides of the story. however, there will eb times where won't matter what the defendant says, as there is enough physical evidence to lock 'em up. Most criminals lie anways...asking them their side of the story is usually just a baseline that they can judge their lies against later on.

But then again many times I have spoken to the suspect...only to find out they were the victim...and arrested the person who called.

Police do not charge people with crimes. That is for the investigators later on.

Answer 5

The officer does not CHARGE the person with anything. The can ARREST a person without hearing there side of the story. This would normally not happen unless they were fairly sure they had determined what actually happened from physical evidence and third party witnesses.

Answer 6

Ideally you want to get both sides of the story, but sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming that you don't need to, or the defendant will refuse to talk to you or not come in at all. Also if the officer witnessed the act he may not interview the defendant, but ideally you want to get both sides. IMO.

Answer 7

if there is enough evidence against a person, they will get a warrant, signed by a judge, and arrest the person. then they will get their side of the story. if there is enough evidence for a warrant, the person gets indicted. even if they claim to be innocent, if the evidence is there, they'll be charged.

Answer 8

I think they have to talk to both sides because if they falsely charge someone I think they can be sued