Arrest for Past Crimes?

[mech]

This happened roughly 3 years ago. A friend of mine was video taped smoking marijuana with others. Only a few days later, the person in possession of the video was arrested on unrelated charges at a location a dozen miles from the dwelling. The police reviewed the tape and got the guy they arrested to give them the address of where the rest of the group were staying together. When the group was apprehended, my friend was neither intoxicated nor in the possession of any drugs on his person but still was charged with marijuana-related crimes.

My question is, how much evidence is required for someone to be charged with past crimes of various levels of seriousness? I would assume that someone that admits to police to committing a capital offense could be arrested even without much further evidence. On the other hand, I would doubt someone would be charged with a crime after admitting to an officer they were in possession of a Class C drug in the recent past without further evidence of a crime being committed.

[acmb05]

Originally Posted by mech

This happened roughly 3 years ago. A friend of mine was video taped smoking marijuana with others. Only a few days later, the person in possession of the video was arrested on unrelated charges at a location a dozen miles from the dwelling. The police reviewed the tape and got the guy they arrested to give them the address of where the rest of the group were staying together. When the group was apprehended, my friend was neither intoxicated nor in the possession of any drugs on his person but still was charged with marijuana-related crimes.

My question is, how much evidence is required for someone to be charged with past crimes of various levels of seriousness? I would assume that someone that admits to police to committing a capital offense could be arrested even without much further evidence. On the other hand, I would doubt someone would be charged with a crime after admitting to an officer they were in possession of a Class C drug in the recent past without further evidence of a crime being committed.

Well since they have your moron son on TAPE smoking pot I think they have some evidence.

[Some Random Guy]

I think that the poster's question should be "If my moron son videotaped himself smoking pot, what is the statute of limitations for the police to charge him with that crime?"

And of course our answer would be "What is the name of your state?"

[mech]

You apparently missed a few things in your reading. Here are a few suggestions:
1. I said friend not son.
2. It happened 3 years ago...I am not looking for advice on that case.
3. I intentionally made bold that sentence because that is what I want responses about.
4. The last example I gave was not a reference to the story. I gave it to elaborate on my question.


I've read and watched a lot of videos of police encounters with citizens. From what I've seen, nearly no one is arrested for admitting to a minor crime committed in the past. For example, if a suspect admits to smoking marijuana a short time earlier and is found to not be in possession of any drugs, he is released and not charged with anything. My question is what level of crime does a suspect have to admit to committing to be arrested without the support of any additional evidence? I was also wondering what effect of how recently the crime was committed in addition to the statute of limitations. It seems reasonable to me that an officer would be more likely to arrest someone for admitting to crime that happened an hour ago than several years.

[acmb05]

Originally Posted by mech

You apparently missed a few things in your reading. Here are a few suggestions:
1. I said friend not son.
2. It happened 3 years ago...I am not looking for advice on that case.
3. I intentionally made bold that sentence because that is what I want responses about.
4. The last example I gave was not a reference to the story. I gave it to elaborate on my question.


I've read and watched a lot of videos of police encounters with citizens. From what I've seen, nearly no one is arrested for admitting to a minor crime committed in the past. For example, if a suspect admits to smoking marijuana a short time earlier and is found to not be in possession of any drugs, he is released and not charged with anything.

unless they have other proof, i/e a video

Originally Posted by mech

My question is what level of crime does a suspect have to admit to committing to be arrested without the support of any additional evidence? I was also wondering what effect of how recently the crime was committed in addition to the statute of limitations. It seems reasonable to me that an officer would be more likely to arrest someone for admitting to crime that happened an hour ago than several years.

there are people who admit to crimes all the time. If the police do not have any other evidence connecting them to the crime then they forward the information to the DA and they decide if there should be any charges made in the case.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by mech

...

My question is, how much evidence is required for someone to be charged with past crimes of various levels of seriousness?

....

It is difficult, if not impossible, to answer hypothetical questions.

[outonbail]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

It is difficult, if not impossible, to answer hypothetical questions.

It becomes even more difficult, when the poster doesn't provide the name of his/her state.

[seven53]

How would a video tape of someone smoking be considered evidence that the item being smoked was marijuana?

[CdwJava]

I imagine three years is beyond the statute of limitations. Then there are problems with authenticating the substance smoked, the exact date and location where the tape was made, etc.

While it is evidence of stupidity, I doubt that anyone would use it for criminal charges unless the boy really pissed off the cops or the DA (and the SOL had not passed).

- Carl