Uncooperative Witness

You can be arrested in that situation - despite the constitution.

To quote:

"The Colorado Supreme Court held in Dempsey v. People, No. 04SC362 (2005) that refusing to provide identification was an element in the “totality of the circumstances” that could constitute obstructing an officer, even when actual physical interference was not employed.

Utah’s “obstructing” law does not require a physical act, but merely a failure to follow a “lawful order . . . necessary to effect the . . . detention”.

A divided court in Oliver v. Woods concluded that failure to present identification constituted a violation of that law.

Click to expand...

The 'Hiibel' case is the usual one quoted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

Whether the arrest holds up is another question. The police could simply say that the 'witness' became a suspect, which then means that if he refuses to give a statement (at least his name and, in some states, his 'intended destination') then he can quite legitimately be arrested.

I'm sure the cops can bend some rule to find a reason. (Eg: Did they search his car for drugs (after he didn't cooperate) and find a slip of paper indicating that his workplace had a SuperBowl party with a $5 betting pool? Great! They can arrest him for betting illegally!)

Mac

If you are having trouble with the arrest - try using the word "detain." An agency, depending upon your venue (State), can detain a person of interest for up to seventy-two hours without charging them. No arrest and not threat of "false arrest."

ETA: Being detained is not pleasant, especially for someone who has never been in a holding cell. In a county jail, for instance, someone being detained my be placed in the drunk tank with all the other... well... drunks. Not fun. (As a note to the writer, a drunk tank smells like piss, vomit, sweat, and the blue floor cleaner they occasionally hose the walls down with.)

ETA x2: Being detained in this fashion, even among cops, is considered a dick maneuver.

Besides the detainment approach, which can work very well, the question is how far are the authorities willing to go. Ultimately, you throw a reluctant witness that you absolutely need in front of a grand jury proceeding or you bring him/her in front of a judge. Refusing to answer in either situation can result in contempt of court and being held until such time as you decide to talk, or the court decides that holding you any longer isn't going to work. This can be months or years.

Take a look at some of the cases involving reporters and refusing to divulge sources.

Ultimately, however, both detainment and court is going to require approval of someone with sufficient authority. There's a limit to how far one cop could force this. And a cop refusing to talk to a witness who's only willing to talk to that one cop is going to find himself/herself investigating dumpsters or some other fun activity. Or fired if there's no union.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

chartruscan said:

What is the recourse of police with a witness who refuses to give any statement at all?

I'm sure the answer is "nothing at all", so I'll rephrase my purpose:

I have a character who was a witness to a crime, and refuses to give a statement to anyone but one particular cop. Said cop is contacted, and due to complicated relationship status, refuses to take their statement.

Click to expand...

This is interesting - are there procedures in place that would mean that the cop HAD to do it? Or what would happen if he didn't?

I guess a big part fo it depends on the crime really. I mean, if it's something HUGE then the cop would be a fool. if it's like jaywalking then it's probably not a big deal.

Context is important.

Now, I would love for the consequence to be that the witness gets thrown into jail for obstructing justice, or something. For them to be so betrayed by their friend saying "throw them in the tank" rather than talk to them. But I'm sure I'd be stretching the bounds of reality for that to happen.

As such, is there any other way that I can achieve something like this (I'm okay with a little reality bending if that's what it takes).

Click to expand...

I know that witnesses can be detained, but how effective that is I simply don't know.

I would guess that, in many high profile serious crimes, there are lots of witnesses who won't testify or who withdraw their statement.

A reluctant cop can be ordered to take the statement (an integral aspect of his/her job description). Failure to follow orders will have serious potential repercussions (administrative, civil, or even possibly criminal in some cases). In short, he/she can't really refuse.

There are several ways to inconvenience and/or incarcerate an uncooperative witness, but Grand Jury presentation is the best and traditionally the most effective.

Non-cooperative witnesses are not candidates for the (federal) Witness Protection Program.

I'm surprised at some answers. People refuse to testify all the time in every city and state. The cop should take the statement because if said witness is killed, said cop is in a #$%^storm.

ironmikezero said:

In short, he/she can't really refuse.

Click to expand...

Not really. At my department, refusal of a direct order of this nature is met with a written reprimand. That's about it. And in taking a witness statement, for real, the officer turns to his commanding officer and says, "Sarg, I ain't comfortable taking this guys statement. I don't wanna do it." Sarg says, "Yeah, okay, ya pussy."