Can a police officer charge someone with no evidence?
No, because police do not charge anyone.Police can arrest you for probable cause, which is done without evidence in a lot of circumstances. But, Police don't “charge” you, the government does, via federal, state, county, or city prosecutors. They need some articulable reason that they think they may have a shot at a case against you to formally charge you. “They” being the prosecutor, not the police.Police do not need evidence to arrest you…Probable cause is enough. They just have to be able to articulate the reasons for the arrest.
Can a police officer modify a police report?
In a limited fashion, yes.Policy in my department is that an officer may modify a police report any time before final review by the Records department.To explain, when an officer writes a report, it is reviewed by a supervisor, who then either approves it or sends it back to the officer for clarification or corrections. After the supervisor approves the report, it is given to Records for a final review. After that review, the report is locked and no more edits are allowed by the system.If an officer needs to make a correction or clarification after supervisor approval but prior to Records approval, the officer is required to notify a supervisor about the correction.If something needs clarification later, then a supplemental narrative is opened and the clarification is made in the supplement, which then goes through the same approval process.Things may work differently in other departments.(Edit) As clarification, our report system has full audit capabilities and you can see who edited what and when (the system requires unique logins).
How does a police officer know who to believe when writing a police auto accident report? Are there conflicting reports of incident?
In any damage only road traffic collision, and in the absence of any viably proven road traffic offences, it is not the job of the police to “believe” any drivers account over another, or to apportion “blame” in any collision.It is the officer's job to decide who has committed any driving offences or not, and if it is a simple one on one collision, with no specific driving offences apparent they will leave the decision of blame and liability to the insurance companies.All they do is record the facts of what happened, whenever necessary.It is the insurance companies who decide who is to “blame” and will apportion the burden of payment or responsibility on the person who they decide who is most responsible, or will deem the accident to be 50/50 if necessary.In most cases, they will appoint a percentage of the blame on one driver or the other.This percentage is useful in deciding how much one driver’s insurance has to pay over another.
What happens if testimony does not match police report?
It's all still -evidence-. A judge might throw the case out, deciding it's not strong enough to stand on its own. A prosecutor might decide there isn't enough evidence, or the evidence isn't good enough to get a conviction, and drop the case. A grand jury might decide the evidence is inconsistent and not to indict the defendant. Finally, the jury might decide the evidence is contradictory and that there is a 'reasonable doubt' of the defendant's guilt. But suppose there are four or five witnesses, and most of them agree with the police report. Even if you 'impeach' a witness who seems to have gotten it wrong, there might still be enough evidence to convict the defendant.
Are real-life CSIs actual police officers or civilians?
On the TV shows, they clearly are cops on CSI: MIAMI & CSI: NY but there has been a lot of contradiction on the original CSI, set in Las Vegas. (It would appear that Nick, Sara & Warrick are but, as I said, there have been contradictions in this series.) I know they can be both in real-life but, as a general rule, wouldn't they actually be sworn police officers and would a civilian CSI ever be alowed to carry a gun? Thanks.
What if a police officer completely falsifies your police report?
Anyone who files a false police report is committing a crime. Whether the crime is a misdemeanor or a felony depends on the law in that jurisdiction. That said, I'd guess that 90% of the people I arrested, if they read my arrest report, claimed that I lied in the report. Sometimes this is a matter of different perspectives, sometimes it's faulty memory (the people I arrested were often intoxicated), and sometimes one party or the other is not being truthful. If a police officer routinely files false reports and/or lies during testimony, it eventually becomes apparent. If the officer is shown on the record having lied, his value as a law enforcement officer is close to zero. If your testimony can't be relied on, there is no point in taking a case involving that officer to trial. While, without doubt, some police officers lie in reports and under oath, I don't think there are nearly as many as detractors of the police claim there to be. When there is video or other similar evidence of officer conduct, it exonerates the officers more often than it condemns them, as it did in this story.You can file a complaint against the officer with the police department. If your sole contention is that the officer lied in the report, and you have no evidence other than your word to back this up, the complaint probably won't be taken seriously. At trial, you can cross-examine the officer and present your own evidence. However, as other suggested, this is a matter best handled by an attorney.
Is George Zimmerman guilty of killing Trayvon Martin?
Yes he's guilty of killing Trayvon. He's admitted to doing so. The bullet in Trayvon came from his gun that he was holding when the cops arrived. The question is...was this shooting somehow justified as either self defense or under Florida's vague "stand your ground" law, or was it 1st degree murder. 1st degree murder carries a very specific set of requirements that the prosecution must prove to the jury in order to get a conviction. We don't have all the information so it's impossible for us to make this determination. Zimmerman claims Trayvon attacked him, so he shot in self defense. Ok...that would make sense except that we also know Zimmerman was following Trayvon - against the direct advice of the 911 operator he was on the phone with at the time. This strongly indicates that Zimmerman intended to confront Trayvon - but by itself does not prove that he did. If Zimmerman did indeed start the fight as it were, can he still claim self defense? After all, based on what we know of Trayvon's actions that night, he was not looking to confront Zimmerman. In fact he was on his cellphone with his girlfriend and told her he was scared because he was being followed. If Trayvon felt threatened by Zimmerman, might it have been Trayvon - not Zimmerman - that was acting in self defense? In this case Zimmerman would probably be found not-guilty of first degree murder. Trayvon was on his way back to his step-mother's house. He was visiting them, so he was not a resident of the neighborhood. Zimmerman and Trayvon did not know each other therefore any information about Trayvon's previous behaviors is irrelevant here. Furthermore, as a member of the neighborhood watch, it was never Zimmerman's job to follow, let alone confront, Trayvon. The only "suspicious" thing Trayvon was doing was walking back to the house. As I said there are a lot of details we're missing, and honestly we're never going to know the fully story because Trayvon can't tell his side of the story. I think the jury will find Zimmerman not-guilty. The cops didn't do a proper job collecting evidence at the scene, and have already been accused of changing witness' statements. It's basically going to be OJ Simpson all over again.