Free Republic

Why don't you be the Freeper test case and pick up the phone and report a bogus interstate kidnapping ... blah blah blah ...

Here are a few cases turned up with a google of "false report" abduction. I'd say these cases are more apt to warrant some serious charges than Wilbanks "phony abductor story" is.

Whatever rule "we" make, think of as being equally applied in similar fact patterns.

I think what Wilbanks did was rotten. What I don't find agreeable is making any of her actions into crimes, tempting as that may be. She'll get hers by way of social diminution. I doubt she'll "do the right thing" and apologize, or that she'll offer to compensate for the wasted effort her disappearance caused.

I still wonder if there isn't more to come out. Specifically, if her beau didn't know all along she was safe. That would REALLY change the legal issue in Georgia, but not in ABQ.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:14 AM CDT
TAHLEQUAH - The alleged abduction of a 17-year-old girl last week turned out to be a false report, authorities said Monday.

Cherokee County Chief Investigator Jason Chennault said Muskogee PD Detective Greg Martin told him the girl recanted her story. She had filed a report with both agencies, claiming she was abducted by three black men in a dark-colored sport utility vehicle in Cherokee County near the Fort Gibson Dam and taken to Muskogee, where she was gang-raped in an abandoned house.

"She told the Muskogee police she ran away and went to Muskogee," Chennault said. He said the girl admitted to Muskogee police that she had sex with a man while in Muskogee. He was unable to bring her back to Cherokee County, so his friends agreed to bring her back in exchange for having sex with her.

Chennault said he's sent a copy of the report to the district attorney's office. "It is a crime to falsely report a crime," he said. "I don't want to scare someone out of filing a report if they have a legitimate crime to report, but they need to know they can be prosecuted for filing a false report."

It's not known whether the girl will be charged with filing a false report.
Tahlequah Daily Press

---

February 2, 2005
Motel owner pleads guilty to attempting to file false report

TRAVERSE CITY - A local businessman who faked his own robbery and abduction pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

Bruce Cox, owner of the Sands Motel in East Bay Township, entered his plea Tuesday morning in 86th District Court to one count of attempted false report of a felony after he faked his own disappearance last month. He told police he planned to make his suicide look like a homicide so his family could collect insurance money.

The incident occurred Jan. 9 after his wife reported to police that he had not returned home the night before. Troopers found the motel's business office ransacked and the owner's vehicle missing.

Cox, who appeared in court with attorney Eric Phelps, told Judge John Foresman that he had attempted unsuccessfully to take his own life Jan. 8. When he returned to the motel the next day, he lied to officers at the scene, telling them he had been robbed and kidnapped.

"I was scared and I made a false report," he told Foresman. "I basically told them I had been robbed and that someone had taken me. I was scared."

In exchange for his plea, the Grand Traverse County prosecutor dropped two felony charges, including false report of a felony, a four-year charge, and arson of personal property, punishable up to five years.

http://www.gtherald.com/2005/feb/02plead.htm

That second one was a short lived lie, similar to Wilbanks. But damn, sounds like he did a bucnh of other stuff that was dropped, like arson, and attempted insurance fraud.

County attorney charges girl who reported false abduction
Posted: 9/10/04

Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom announced that his office has filed a charge of falsely reporting a crime (a misdemeanor) against a 15-year-old Inver Grove Heights girl in connection with a false report of an abduction and attempted sexual assault reported to the Inver Grove Heights police earlier this month.

On Aug. 2, 2004, a 15-year-old girl reported to Inver Grove Heights police that she had been walking on a city street when three men drove by in a vehicle. She claimed the vehicle stopped and one of the men got out and forced her into the back seat of the vehicle, slapped her, attempted to pull up her shirt and tried to remove her sweatpants.

She claimed she kicked and punched this individual and was able to get away, and the vehicle drove off. Following up on the report, Inver Grove Heights police again interviewed the alleged victim who ultimately admitted that she made up the story and lied to police.

http://www.thisweek-online.com/2004/september/10av_false.html

[The police has alerted the town, and the police had to "recant"]

---

(New York -WABC, March 28, 2005) -- The attempted abduction of a child turned out to be a hoax. The story, at first, was chilling: A reported attempted kidnapping, accounts of a shady man in a van.

We're told child protective services is now involved in this investigation. So far no criminal charges have been filed.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_032805_abductionhoax.html

Dang. THere are lots more of them. False abduction stories are more common than I thought. Anyway, comapre what some of these twits got for their crimes, and compare their crimes with the consequences of Wilbanks' phony abductor story. She recanted pretty quick, and I don't theink "the community" was ever put on the lookout for a blue van, etc.

Not condoning what she did. Just trying to be a realist with regard to how the law handles these cases.

Why don't you be the Freeper test case and pick up the phone and report a bogus interstate kidnapping ... blah blah blah ...

It may be tough to accept, but cases are actually handled on a case-by-case basis. That means the facts of the case sitting on the other side of LEO's desk are considered. So let's check the fact on THIS case (and see why I don't qualify):

• The gal is a reported missing person. There has been a search for her in a state 2,000 miles away.
• The person has been missing for about 3 days. She's safe now, and I have her in my custody.
• The person was scheduled to be in a big wedding later today (ding ding ding ... bit of suspicion here ... maybe she got cold feet, that is not uncommon)
• The person says she had been abducted. So, since my job is to find abductors, best start asking questions like "what do these abductors look like?"
• I keep asking the same question, but get different answers (ding ding ding ... more suspicion this person isn't telling the truth. Plus, abductions are a hell of alot less common that cold feet jitters, etc.)
• I say, "Okay .. blue van, hispanic male about 5'10", etc. ... should we start looking for them now?"
• The person breaks down and says "No. I was lying about being abducted. The truth is, I wigged out about the marriage/wedding whatever. But now I just want to go home."

Now. Faced with that fact pattern, and the effort I have expended (20 man hours or so), I have to make a decision. Felony? Misdemanor? Or just get this person the hell out of my town with well-wishes?

Sure, it's a judgement call. But I'm not out the effort of the search in Georgia, the missing person has been located and is safe.

Are you saying that you, faced with that fact pattern (and your jurisdiction being ABQ), would charge the person with a FELONY the crime of lying about the abduction? After the person has recanted the lie and before your police force has initiated the abductor search? If so, you're a literalist on statutory application, and your case is apt to be lost. You'll have the expense of prosecuting the case, and not much liklihood of success.

Oh. My report. I send her home with well wish, and thank my lucky stars I'm not on the Duluth PD for this case.

None of us would dare do what Jennifer did , because we know that we would be facing legal consequences.

I'd like to see a similar case where there was a legal penalty. None has been cited. If it is a slam dunk, like Seiler was, the DA will file charges in the next two weeks. Seiler was charged for the second search, not the one for her. The second search is Seiler's case was for a phantom abductor.

I don't think I'd be facing legal charges for skipping town and making an appearance change in the process. If I don't abandon any legal obligations in the old town, what are you gonna charge me with? P.S. I don't want you to look for me, but you have to figure that out for yourself.

Exactly. Going against the law and blocking this girl's right to decide would be judicial activism which I thought we were against. Oh, but if we don't like the rules I guess we can change them in the middle of the game.

Judicial activism is what took the law out of the legislatures hands in the first place. The law that is being enforced here is judge made law, not legislation. The rule being enforced here exists becuase of judicial activism.

Too bad the people don't have the gumption to shitcan the activist judges. Part of the rules includes the power to impeach. If the judges don't want that rule to be used, they can respect the will of the people and refrain from legislating from the bench. "Laws regarding abortion are PRESUMED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL," so says the Florida Supreme Court. The people are kow-towing to judical made law that the public does not support. Evidence that the public doesn't support it? Passing of a Constitutional amendment to the privacy clause of the Florida Constitution.

The girl is on record stating she wanted to keep it and have momma raise it.

Actually, she is on the record as wanting an abortion, and being darn firm in that conviction. Whatever she said she'd do if the pregancy wasn't terminated was at best an honest second choice, but was more likely designed to get anybody who objected to her decision to "give into" her way.

The fact that this was before a trial judge, and a decision was rendered by a trial judge, still has me puzzled. Florida case law is crystal clear. Last I heard, the trial judge was awaiting a ruling from the appeals court, as to whether ANY court had business in this case.

This would be a good law to pass, requiring minors be evaluated psychologically and physically before legally having an abortion ...

I am guessing that this is part of the admissions counseling and examination. It makes sense that the staff at the clinic would be fully equipped to qualify the patients.

We all want to charge her with a crime because we're all pissed off. If there wasn't a 911 call, we'd still be pissed off and there would be no reason to squawk.

Well, there'd still be a reason to squawk ;-)

But you are right about all of us having the right to go crackerpuppies. The 911 call is a tempting factoid, but it's logical error to use the call to hang her with the cost of the search that preceded the call.

A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy, and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law. It is therefore imperative to adhere to the essence of Roe's original decision, and we do so today.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Usually, but not in this case. I think all the talk of charging her is due to the police being embarrassed for being so throughly hoodwinked into mounting such a massive search so early. This isn't the normal procedure for a missing person, unless it is a child.

I was just talking about the contact at the end of her adventure. Nobody was seriously hoodwinked by her cover story, and she recanted her cover story.

The Audrey Seiler case, in Wisconsin, was different. After the search for Audrey was concluded, Audrey sent the cops off on a phantom abductor chase, complete with composite sketches. Wilbanks recanted before it got that far.

I think there are several motivations for wanting to charge her. The search was in fact a waste. But I sure don't see a clear case for billing her for it, as a matter of law, or as a matter of good public policy.

I don't doubt that in the least. But I sure would love to see abortion out of the courts entirely.

So say the dissents in Roe, Planned Parenthood, and other cases.

O'Connor's opinion in Planned Parenthood is a hoot. It says that since the court settled this matter, it would be wrong to return it to the people. To do so would create social havoc.

Heheheh. Not funny ha ha, but incredible that the people put up with being ruled by judges.

Much easier to impeach state judges.

But a distinction without a practical difference. Neither state nor federal legislatures exercize their power of impeachment, especially not when the courts usurp the legislative function.

The people blame the courts, and the legislators duck the controversy. The public doesn't call on the legislators to exercise their power to impeach. In fact, I'll bet the public doesn't know the legislators even have that power. Or if they do, they perceive the power as being limited to removing drunk, incompetent and senile judges.

There is apparently a window of four and a half hours, where you receive complete dispensation for making a false police report to New Mexico LE and the FBI.

The "window" is no doubt indefinite with regard to time duration. If you are the object of search, and are not in custody (e.g., kids call in "I'm being kidnapped! I'm in a black 1988 Cadillac!") you probably get a short time to recant. But when you are a runaway bride-to-be (she told them she was scheduled to be married), the cops might just have a suspicion that your story is made up as cover for cold feet.

I think that law enforcement does a respectable job of probing the complaint before going off. It's a sort of safety valve for them, and for the people they are serving.

We should get rid of Roe. Let each state have a referendum on abortion.

As the Florida situation shows, the willingness of the courts to legislate goes beyond the US Supreme Court. Roe could be reversed tomorrow (it will never be, IMO, because the court is too arrogant), and each state court would step in to fill the gap and prevent legislation that restricts abortion.

I don't see how we can fault the judge in this case.

In reading the "North Florida" case, I have a hard time understanding how even the court gets a say so. If a minor says to the doctor, I want an abortion, and the minor's physical health can stand the procedure (and any other qualifications are met), she's entitled to it without a need for court or parental consent.

Okay fine, the point is that she was gone for all that time and the police immediately opened up an investigation. How is she supposed to be liable for fines before she made her bogus 911 call on the weekend?

Beats me. That's the Georgia DA's problem. I think his case would be weak, and I think he would be ill advised to pursue it.

Cboldt: I don't agree with the law as a social matter [referring to FL "North Florida" and "T.F." cases and their holdings that struck down requirements for parental notification and parental consent, respectively, for a minor obtaining an abortion]

pa mom: To clarify, does that mean you don't don't think the law should be in social matters?

I support having a statute that requires parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion. I might, but would have to be talked into, a judicial safety-valve for some cases, but even then, would require parental notificaiton, and would require the judge to see and hear the parent's side before permitting the minor to act against the parent's orders. The parent's are presumptively "right." Burden on the minor.

The Florida Supreme court holds that minors have an unfettered right to an abortion, behind their parents back. This social construct was established by judges, not by a legislature. I think the social construct is bad, and I think it is a slap in the face of the people of Florida that they can't make their own laws.

That is bad law, judicially implemented probably, and should be changed but I don't see how we can fault the judge in this case.

Sort of judicially implemented. The court ruled that certain statutes were unconstitutional. The law in Florida is that statutes that limit a right to abortion are PRESUMED unconstitutional, and the burden is on the state to justify the intrusion.

I've linked to the case elsewhere on this thread. Not sure what you mean by "bad law." It is enforced. I don't agree with the law as a social matter, but I don't live in Florida either. The people and legislature in FLorida haven't effectively countered the judical activism in their state.

It was almost a full week before she made a call (someone please correct me if I am wrong) ...

She disappeard Tuesday night. Her disappearance was reported late Tuesday night (before midnight). The search was changed to a criminal investigation on Thursday morning, even though there was no evidence of a crime.

Duluth Police Chief Randy Belcher said the possibility that 32-year-old Jennifer Wilbanks developed "cold feet" before her wedding this Saturday had mostly been ruled out. [Do we have a hearty hindsight "HaHaHaHaHa!"]

"The longer this investigation continues and she hasn't shown up, that theory is dwindling quickly," he said.

Earlier Thursday police classified the search as a criminal investigation.

"We decided to make it criminal simply because 24 hours has passed. We have not located her in a hospital or any place of that nature. Since she has not returned ... there has to be another reason for her not being here," Belcher said.

Belcher said while there is no indication a crime was committed, more resources are available in a criminal probe.

href=http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/28/wilbanks/?section=cnn_topstories

Police gave mixed signals about whether they believe Wilbanks, a hospital nurse, may have gotten cold feet four days before her wedding.

Woodruff said authorities did not believe Wilbanks was a runaway bride. But under questioning from reporters, Police Chief Randy Belcher later said: "It's a very real possibility she did get cold feet. I mean, how many husbands have gone out for a pack of cigarettes and not come back?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/28/national/main691496.shtml

She called authorities, and home, Saturday morning. That would make her total "away time" just under 3 and a half days.

It would have been an activist move for him not to allow the abortion. If there was parental custody over this teen and the parents agreed to allow the abortion, we would have no problem with it on a legal basis.

In Florida, even if the parents do NOT agree, a minor has a right to obtain an abortion. This right can be exercized without obtaining court permission in lieu of parental permission. The law cannot require the clinic to inform the parents of the minor's decision.

Did he say that DCF could give consent and then they gave such consent, or did he say they MUST give consent?

The decision amonts to the DCF has no say in the matter. The minor is competnt to make her own decision regarding an abortion.

I'm curious as to what really goes on behind DCF doors, especially if 13 year olds are getting pregnant. A few years ago, weren't they (DCF) investigated for "loosing" a little girl?

Could be the same girl. This one was missing from DCF custody for a month, and never reported as such. She became pregnant during that absence.