False Rape Accusation - Bill for Rape Kit

[amsatmrepair]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Wisconsin

In July of 2009 I was falsely accused of rape by an acquaintance. A suspect rape kit examination for me was ordered by search warrant, of which I complied (was taken to hospital while in police custody).


A few days later the acquaintance involved admitted she made up the entire thing. She has been charged with resisting and obstructing an officer.


In August I received a bill from the hospital for upwards of $1500 for the cost of the examination. The hospital has been of little help, saying I am the one who gets billed because I was the patient. The police department is working with the DA to try to get the acquaintance to pay the bill as part of her trial resolution, but I have little confidence that she will pay.


Do I have any recourse to force the police department to take over responsibility for this bill? Who is typically charged by the hospital in the situation of a rape kit examination ordered by search warrant? What other actions can I take to protect my financial interests and credit rating? I am in Wisconsin.

 

[JETX]

Do I have any recourse to force the police department to take over responsibility for this bill?

No.

Who is typically charged by the hospital in the situation of a rape kit examination ordered by search warrant?

The suspect (you).

What other actions can I take to protect my financial interests and credit rating?

You an pursue a civil lawsuit against the person who made the false accusation that caused you to incur the expense. You can also include a claim for defamation and other possible 'damages'.

 

[tranquility]

I have no idea of the law on this matter, but if JETX is correct, this is a travesity.

The suspected person (aka victim) is ordered by the court to do something and he is required to pay for it? Even after he is completely exonerated? What about the police officer's time? The capital cost and the fuel and maintence costs of the police car to take him there? The time of the detectives, judges, court personnel and, heck, the janitor involved with the investigation and in the search warrant are all the responsibility of the victim here? Did he get to choose the cheapest provider?

What is the statute for this? It's clearly not a contract by basic contract theory and it is not a necessary treatment where the hospital can expect quantum meruit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing as I have no idea. But, I'd like a little more than conclusiory answers--although I accept I don't always get what I like.

 

[CdwJava]

I know that when WE do a rape kit, the hospital sends US the bill, not the defendant. We do not have to pay for the processing of the kit (handled by the state), but we do have to pay for the collection ... and, actually, I believe the state reimburses that cost to us ... at least, they did, before the current budget cuts.

If the defendant got billed, it could just be that the hospital did that because his name was on a particular form. He can probably challenge the bill.

- Carl

 

[JETX]

I know that when WE do a rape kit, the hospital sends US the bill, not the defendant. We do not have to pay for the processing of the kit (handled by the state), but we do have to pay for the collection ... and, actually, I believe the state reimburses that cost to us ... at least, they did, before the current budget cuts.

If the defendant got billed, it could just be that the hospital did that because his name was on a particular form. He can probably challenge the bill.

He got billed for the suspect kit because he was the SUSPECT!!!

The police (public) shouldn't have to shoulder the cost for the suspect.
The victim (if there were one) shouldn't have to shoulder the suspects costs.
The SUSPECT is liable for the costs incurred for the SUSPECT test kit.

In this case, the 'suspect' was the victim of a falsified report. As such, the person who lied and forced the 'suspect' to incur the cost is (or should be) liable for the costs incurred due to her false report.

 

[CdwJava]

He got billed for the suspect kit because he was the SUSPECT!!!

The police (public) shouldn't have to shoulder the cost for the suspect.
The victim (if there were one) shouldn't have to shoulder the suspects costs.
The SUSPECT is liable for the costs incurred for the SUSPECT test kit.

In this case, the 'suspect' was the victim of a falsified report. As such, the person who lied and forced the 'suspect' to incur the cost is (or should be) liable for the costs incurred due to her false report.

I guess laws vary by state. We can't bill the suspect. Sometimes the hospital has been known to bill suspects because, as we know, errors happen. Heck, I was once transported to the hospital via ambulance IN uniform, and I received the bill for the ride at my home. It was an on duty injury as a result of a fight with a suspect and thus was covered by the city, yet the ambulance company billed me personally. Sometimes this happens.

In this case the OP was forced to be subject to the kit pursuant to a search warrant. If we seized a CAR per search warrant, we sure as heck would not be able to charge the suspect for the impound and storage fees ... at least not in CA. There are certain types of cases out here where the suspect can be forced to pay some compensation for the costs to investigate his crime, but this after a conviction, not during the investigation.

Maybe in the suspect's state the defendant is forced to pay for the cost of the investigation against him even if he is not later found guilty ... I think that is sad, but maybe that's the case in his state. I suspect, however, that this is a billing error on the part of the hospital rather than some draconian measure. At least, I hope so.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

He got billed for the suspect kit because he was the SUSPECT!!!

So, basically, you really don't have any idea of the legal justification for this either.

By the by, absent RICO seizures, do you know of any other such treatment under the law? What is a suspect anyway?

While I don't have a cite to disprove what you say, I know you have not made a case for this.