I've recently been told two or three versions of a story. It's nothing mind-shattering or anything, but it is somewhat unusual (at least by my standards.) The people who told me these somewhat conflicting stories are family members, so I don't want to go into detail. I trust them, and would like to chalk the differences up to age, lack of precise recall, different "memory priorities" (for lack of a better term,) etc. The events relayed took place before I was even born, so it's likely easily explained by those factors. However, it still disturbed me, and as such I have some questions I'm hoping someone can answer with regard to police protocols and procedures.

Hypothetical scenario: Someone is a convicted criminal who is known by authorities to commit a certain type of crime and profit from it. They select certain targets for these crimes, and the crime involves holding them against their will, as well as playing mind games with them. They have been convicted of the crime (which I'd rather not specify, because a victim is one of my family members, at least potentially,) and have served some time but are out on parole. They kidnap someone, hold them against their will, and go so far as to force them to wed. The victim finally escapes, and contacts the authorities. They return to the perpetrator's place of residence (with officers in tow) and confront the perpetrator. He shows them a marriage certificate and protests, but they inform him that he must allow the victim to leave whether they are married or not. They ensure she is allowed to leave while he remains in his place of residence.

Question #1: Would they or would they not run his record and find that he has a history of such criminal activity?

Question #2: Would they or would they not arrest him for parole violation?

Question(s) #3: If someone is married to someone who is the victim of captivity of the hypothetical sort outlined above, does the spouse of the victim have the ability and/or right to access the perpetrator's criminal record? I.e. if someone later married the victim, could they access records regarding the perpetrator if said perpetrator showed up one day looking for trouble? Could an argument be made that it was in their best interest to have that information, legally, justifying its release to them? Would that even be necessary? Is this a normal occurrence (to give out a criminal record of a perpetrator to a spouse of the victim)?

Question #4: If the aforementioned subsequent spouse was seeking such information, would it be unusual for a police officer they knew personally to put the spouse of the victim in touch with an "investigating branch" and for that branch to then give all the related details of the perpetrator's criminal history to that spouse if they asked for it and explained the circumstances?

Note that these questions, in this case, refer to the California Highway Patrol (CHP, which is much more than just a Highway Patrol for those who might not know this.) As I said, I have heard at least two (closer to three) conflicting versions of a story related to something akin to this, and would like to chalk up inconsistencies between them to age, spurious recall, etc. I figured if there was any site with a diverse enough membership that a few officers (or just knowledgeable civilians) around that were available to answer these questions, it would be ATS.

Thanks very much, and I apologize for not going into greater detail.

Out of kindness, I will reply and let you know why not many people will bother with this: It is all too vauge to be of any value whatsoever, even assuming one scenario. It sounds very weird and one of those domestic problems..He said, she said, etc. People who get married have a hard time convincing a rational person that they were kidnapped, kept for a long time, long enough to totally dominate them, and march them into a courthouse and get a marriage license, and not tip off anyone that a thing is wrong..

You admit that you have several versions of this same tale so no matter what, how does it benefit you to know the truth? You ask many irrelevant questions about what some cop might do..They can do anything they want or nothing at all.Certain states allow open records and some do not. But the main issue is the lack of detail and substance. It sounds like a bunch of fools got into more than they bargained for and now expect a solution from society, typical. Stuff like this has no meaning, no point of interest. The only reason I replied is so you would understand why no one else will. You ask for a hundred answers that seem to lead to nowhere. Good luck.

I apologize if, either through semantics or by my own ignorance or incorrectness, my questions can be perceived as meaningless. However, I still would like answers to them if at all possible. I do appreciate your reply, and must satisfy myself with the hope that you are incorrect, and that someone can and will answer these questions.

I'm not sure what you mean by them wanting a solution from society. What was related to me happened so long ago, and they are so removed from it now, that they would probably just as soon not have discussed it at all. They seek no "solution" from society.

I, on the other hand, am very curious about certain aspects of their stories, and the answers to my questions would help me ascertain something about them. It benefits me to know more about it, because it would help confirm or deny one version over others. I have to start somewhere.

Again, I appreciate your response, and respect your view, but must respectfully (and determinedly) disagree, and will certainly continue to seek answers. As someone once told me, there are no stupid questions. I hope someone else will be able to (and choose to) answer them.

[edit on 6/27/2007 by AceWombat04]

I'm not a legal expert, nor do I play one on television...I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. This effectively takes away any credentials I might have to offer an informed opinion on any of your questions.

Speaking as a 'civilian', as it were, I think you're asking for a lot more in the way of answers than your provided data can support. The best advice that I can give you is to contact an actual lawyer, and give them whatever information you have, minus all the "Suppose that.." and "Hypothetically...". Give them (in the immortal words of millions of court dramas) the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...then let them provide a professional answer.

Yes, I suppose the parameters I've given are a bit broad. Unfortunately, I don't feel comfortable giving greater detail, particularly when it comes to who told me these conflicting stories, as they are close family members.

Perhaps if I rephrase the questions into more succinct yes or no queries, it will help. Ironically, making them even broader by including qualifiers like "any," "always," "mandatory," and "universal," seems like it will make them more easily answered.

These are the revised, hopefully more easily answered, questions:

1) Are there any circumstances under which a spouse can easily access the criminal records (directy from state police, not from a search engine or special service) of a fellow spouse's past assailant, simply by requesting them and providing a name and county?

2) Is it a universal policy or mandatory rule that parolees found committing the crime for which they are on parole will be arrested?

3) Does one always have to fill out forms, provide specific information, etc. in order to obtain criminal records (directly from the state police)?


Those are simple yes or no questions that should prove more easily answerable, although the answers will change the result from my knowing whether one version is true, to knowing whether one version could be true. If that's all I can get, though, I'll be satisfied with it. Failing that, I'll do as the poster above suggested, but doing that may or may not be something they would agree to, and I would be bound to respect their wishes.

Thanks again for anyone who has replied, and for those who do in the future! It is appreciated, even if I don't get the answers I'm seeking.

[edit on 6/28/2007 by AceWombat04]

1) State Police do not retain criminal records. State Police along with City, and County law enforcment agencies have access to criminal records via a data base type system. Each state has a different system for retaining criminal records.

These records are amended by a Clerk of Courts as needed when adjudication has been decided.

2) Police officers do not arrest people for "parole violations". If someone commits a crime, and are caught, they are arrested for that crime. It can be determined by the court whether or not that crime is a violation of someones parole.

This is different than someone having a Warrant issued for there arrest for "parole violation". Failure to show up for a visit to your Parole Officer can (not always) lead to a Judge leveling a Bench Warrant for your arrest.

3) You will have to contact your state government offices to find out what's required to obtain someones criminal history. Police Officers (or State Police in this case) dont access the records unless they are conducting an investigation. If thats the case they can not discuss the investigation or any information that comes from an investigation. The state police will direct you to the proper state government entity to make your inquiry.

Thank-you, xout1. You've more or less answered my questions, and whether you realize it or not, helped me a great deal. It is appreciated. The most important thing you said was:

Originally posted by xout1
Police Officers (or State Police in this case) dont access the records unless they are conducting an investigation. If thats the case they can not discuss the investigation or any information that comes from an investigation. The state police will direct you to the proper state government entity to make your inquiry.

I was told many things about a certain individual by a family member. That family member told me that they received that information about this person as follows: After an encounter with the person, which they knew had had a negative influence over their spouse in years past, they contacted an acquaintance who was a CHP officer, and that this officer put them in touch with, "the investigative branch of the CHP." They said they were told everything about the person's criminal record by them, as well as details of a (then current) ongoing investigation into the person.

So if what you say is correct, the CHP would not have accessed criminal records at this family member's request (or at all unless an investigation was taking place), and moreover, could not have given this family member details of an ongoing investigation. So, unless I misunderstood their story, their memory is faulty, or there is some other explanation for why the information they gave me is not correct.

Thank-you!

I would say it is highly unlikely that a State Police Officer would access and disclose someones criminal record at the request of said persons relative. Now it is not unheard of for Police Officers to access criminal records for their friends or family members. This however is wrong and in most cases a violation of law. Cops are human too....

Investigators dont discuss on going investigations or disclose certian information simply because that jepordizes the case when and if it has to go to court. Investigators are human too and are plagued by the same faults as Police Officers. They dont always make the right decisions when it comes to friends or family members. In the end they dont suffer for their actions. Only the integrity of the case suffers when held under due process.

Im afraid you will probably never know the truth. Your friend may or may not be lieing at the request of the investigator. The investigator may or may not be lieing inorder to protect himself or his case.

Looks to me like you are swimming in very muddy waters.

No doubt. Whatever "conclusions" (such as they are) I can reach will only be inferred and not in any way definitive. It's better than nothing, though. In addition however, the way in which the story was told to me (I know the person who told me very well, as they are a close family member of mine,) the semantics used, the details given, etc. seem to preclude an "inside" or "informal" sharing of information. It's difficult to explain what I mean, because I don't wish to elaborate too much. My point, though, is that it was portrayed as a "by the book," completely standard process through which they acquired the information, whereas you have indicated that any such sharing would in fact have been highly unlikely, and probably illegal or at least counter to policy.

Now, of course, that doesn't tell me anything definitive, but it does imply (and allows me to infer) that someone has been dishonest with me. For that I thank you, whether it leads me to any sort of definitive conclusion eventually or not.