posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 06:11 AM
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.