According to the story:

On arrival, officers were told that a white female approximately 5-5 in height with a medium build, wearing a black fleece, black knit hat, black glasses, and white sneakers entered the bank and approached the teller. Upon reaching the teller, the female said "give me a minute" and walked over to the check writing counter, where she wrote a note on a piece of paper. The female ripped the note into several pieces, dropped it in the trash, and walked out of the bank.

The bank employees went and found the pieces, put them together, and saw "Give me the money" had been written.

So now the police are searching for this person. My question is why? What crime has been committed? You can argue that the mens rea of bank robbery existed at the time, but the actus reus did not. She changed her mind . . . if there was ever any real attempt at robbery involved at all. There is no evidence of a weapon being produced or even being present.

So again, if she is found, what charges would be brought? She walked into a bank and walked out.

http://wbsm.com/fall-river-pol...ould-be-bank-robber/

Maybe they just want to talk to her. See if she has mental issues or can be linked to other 'real' crimes.

Maybe they want to see if she was under duress or was forced into robbing the bank for someone else?

Imagine if they did nothing and she robbed another place for real and ended up killing someone? How could the cops answer to that?

It may still be enough to fall under their "attempted bank robbery" laws.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Maybe they just want to talk to her. See if she has mental issues or can be linked to other 'real' crimes.

Maybe they want to see if she was under duress or was forced into robbing the bank for someone else?

Imagine if they did nothing and she robbed another place for real and ended up killing someone? How could the cops answer to that?

Lot of "maybe's" there.

quote:

Originally posted by Oz_Shadow:
It may still be enough to fall under their "attempted bank robbery" laws.

No. She withdrew from the criminal act before actually attempting it. Had she handed the teller the note, then changed her mind, then possibly.

Might be something that falls under the definition of a welfare check. Nothing nefarious with that.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Holger Danske:...
So now the police are searching for this person. My question is why? What crime has been committed?...

Reasonable suspicion.
Probable cause.

Just because they are "looking for her", does not mean she will be charged with anything. It would appear that they are following up on what I would definitely call "suspicious activity". If a neighborhood resident observes a darkly dressed person walking down the street in the middle of the night, peering into car windows, and calls the police, the police will respond and look for that person. Even if they find them, it does not mean they will be charged with anything, because walking down a street at night looking into cars is not illegal (at least in any jursidiction I know of). Nor is thinking about breaking into a car, but changing your mind. That being said, the cops are still going to respond and investigate. It is very likely that if they locate the woman in question, they will ask some questions. They might be looking for evidence to tie her to previous bank robberies, who knows. But looking for someone in the course of an investigation, and even finding them, does not mean they will be charged with anything.

I am not involved in either the legal profession or the criminal justice system. However from reading what others have written and watching a lot of CourtTV, I get the impression that there is a pretty much set group of people that commit the vast majority of crimes.

What I mean by this is that once someone gets away with her or his first crime, they will continue to commit crimes until they are caught and incarcerated or dead.

So if this is true, if I was a police detective I would keep a list of usual suspects and when a certain crime was commited I would go through my list and rule them out before I started looking at the unusual suspects.

Again, I have no experience in the legal profession or criminal justice system. So take the above for what it is worth.

It’s Massachusetts, so maybe the conversation in her head went like this....

“So if I just rob this joint for $1,000 and put it on the Pats and they win I get $2,000...but I need $5,000 for my cruise, so I put the thousand...lessee, G I V E M E T E E M...ah, can’t spell shit today...put the thousand on the Rams I can...O N E Y...WHAT THE HELL AM I THINKING BETTING AGAINST MY OWN TOMMY?!?!?...(rip rip rip)...I need a Starbucks...

quote:

Originally posted by Oz_Shadow:
It may still be enough to fall under their "attempted bank robbery" laws.

I doubt it.

But they would want to know if she actually did before. Or might actually do it in the future. Or they want to know if she is a loon and dangerous.

And maybe the note was going to say: "Give me the money in my account."

quote:

Originally posted by Oz_Shadow:
It may still be enough to fall under their "attempted bank robbery" laws.

And it is Massachusetts, it could be a crime to think about a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Oz_Shadow:
It may still be enough to fall under their "attempted bank robbery" laws.

I doubt it.

But they would want to know if she actually did before. Or might actually do it in the future. Or they want to know if she is a loon and dangerous.

And maybe the note was going to say: "Give me the money in my account."

Yeah, there was no note involved, but on the last day of last year, the wife and I walked into Union Bank (which had bought the bank that bought our bank, service spiraling down as you’d expect) and said somewhat more politely, “Give us all the money in all our accounts.” Then we walked a block down the street and deposited the several cashier’s checks into the new, hopefully better bank.

Somehow I don’t think that was where she was going with her note though.

She may not have committed a crime, but there is no law against police investigating things and asking people questions either.

If there are unsolved bank robberies in the area with a similar MO and description that is huge PC to find this lady!

Failing that, if this was a 1st time and she opted out, good for her. A police follow up would likely solidify her never going through with it. She bails, then a few days later the police show up for a chat! Talk about dodging a prison sentence and making the right last second decision.

In Bar-ganistan, her act would qualify for attempted robbery. In fact, it's almost a perfect excerpt from a Multi-state essay prompt in Crim Law.

Attempted robbery has two elements: specific intent to commit the crime, and the defendant takes a substantial step towards commission of the crime. Specific intent is intent to do that which is unlawful. A substantial step isn't as clearly defined, but it could be as preparatory as casing an establishment, buying a gun, putting on a mask, or studying when and who works at the establishment to be robbed. At common law, once these two elements have been met, the attempt cannot be abandoned (i.e. too late, you can abandon the robbery, but you can't abandon the attempt because you already did the attempt)

Here, the ripped up note is both evidence of her mens rea of specific intent to rob the bank, and also a substantial step toward robbing the bank (actus reus). The note shows that she intended to rob the bank under implied threat of force (robbery = larceny + assault...elements for which are omitted here because this isn't the bar, and there probably aren't any bar examiners on this board) and it was a substantial step because she did something she would have needed to do to complete the robbery.

The fact that she doesn't have the defense of abandonment doesn't mean she might not have other viable defenses, like duress, or insanity (which might be why the police are following up with this).

Lots of reasons why LEOs might be interested in following up: 1) Someone might be making her do this ("rob the bank or I kill your kid"), 2) she might have gotten cold feet, but will try again later when she's more desparate, 3) She might have co-conspirators who are worth more, 4) there's always good-ole mental health.

Okay, I get the investigatory angle of let's check her out to see about other bank robberies, or duress, or possible mental health issues.

So they figure out who she is, go to her house or apartment, and ask if they can talk to her. And she says no, thank you. Then what?

LDD has suggested that the elements of an attempted robbery have been met (it's been a long time since law school, and I was never much interested in crim law even then), but in the real world, would the events as described be enough to arrest her for further questioning if she declines to talk with the officers.

I don't know why this particular instance has struck me -- maybe I'm just bored, but I think a part of it may be thinking about the tension between law-and-order and libertarianism -- sure, what she did was suspicious, but how far should state action intrude?

And I think I will run this by some of my crim law colleagues to see if it has legs as an experiential learning piece. Lots to argue, it seems to me.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:.... defendant takes a substantial step towards commission of the crime.....

Writing a note, that no one sees, then discarding the note without showing to anyone, along with ripping it up, then leaving Bank. Sorry, not "substantial". Based on that reasoning, walking to the door of the bank, grabbing the door handle and opening the door, she is now guilty of attempted robbery since opening the door would be necessary to rob the bank, or a "substantial step".

The bank's action of rooting through the trash, putting the note together, to read it, cannot act as her "substantial step".

quote:

Originally posted by Holger Danske:
Okay, I get the investigatory angle of let's check her out to see about other bank robberies, or duress, or possible mental health issues.

So they figure out who she is, go to her house or apartment, and ask if they can talk to her. And she says no, thank you. Then what?

...

If she isn't on LE radar at all, no un-solved similar crimes, no other evidence she is involved in crimes, no mental health issues etc. then perhaps that is where it ends...but she knows she wouldn't have gotten away with it, they found her!

Now, if they have other evidence/info in play then it proceeds like any other investigation where the suspect tells the Po-po to pound sand. Search warrants, other witness and suspect interviews, DA threatens the "attempted bank robbery" charge as LDD outlined above as leverage to get her to cooperate and spill the beans on any dirt she has on accomplices (if they have evidence of that.)

I get the libertarian angle, but that cuts both ways. They are free to find her and ask to talk to her and look into the surrounding circumstances. She is free to exercise all her Constitutional rights. We are talking about bank robbery here though not "attempted" shoplifting.

quote:

Originally posted by Holger Danske:
Okay, I get the investigatory angle of let's check her out to see about other bank robberies, or duress, or possible mental health issues.

So they figure out who she is, go to her house or apartment, and ask if they can talk to her. And she says no, thank you. Then what?

LDD has suggested that the elements of an attempted robbery have been met (it's been a long time since law school, and I was never much interested in crim law even then), but in the real world, would the events as described be enough to arrest her for further questioning if she declines to talk with the officers.

I don't know why this particular instance has struck me -- maybe I'm just bored, but I think a part of it may be thinking about the tension between law-and-order and libertarianism -- sure, what she did was suspicious, but how far should state action intrude?

And I think I will run this by some of my crim law colleagues to see if it has legs as an experiential learning piece. Lots to argue, it seems to me.

There is no such thing as "arresting someone for further questioning". That is a product of TV cop shows. You either arrest them on a charge/warrant, or you don't. You don't arrest to question them to see if you have enough to charge them.

At the end of the day, except where existing law requires that you provide certain information or answers (for example, providing a driver's license if driving), you can always refuse to answer questions, even if you *have* been arrested. And if you are not under arrest, you can always tell a police officer to go pound sand. If might not always be the wisest move, but you can do it. I have refused a request by a Texas State Trooper to do a consent search of my truck. He asked. I said "No". End of story.

I get the general idea behind your question, but I'm not sure what it is that is raising a red flag in this circumstance. Again, I go back to my example: If you woke up to get a drink of water at 0200, while standing in your kitchen, you observed a person in dark clothing walking down the street peering intently into the windows of parked cars, would you expect the police, upon being notified, to attempt to locate that individual and investigate (not necessarily arrest, but investigate)? After all, walking down a street at night and looking into the windows of unoccupied cars is not a crime, right?

If the cops locate her and knock on her door, she can tell them to take a hike. The cops can either drop the whole thing; pursue other investigative avenues; or approach their District Attorney/States Attorney and see if they have sufficient cause to arrest. And if they do arrest her, she still does not have to answer questions.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Maybe they just want to talk to her. See if she has mental issues or can be linked to other 'real' crimes.

Maybe they want to see if she was under duress or was forced into robbing the bank for someone else?

Imagine if they did nothing and she robbed another place for real and ended up killing someone? How could the cops answer to that?

Lot of "maybe's" there.

Of course there are. OP asked for speculation. By definition, ALL pur answers will be 'maybes.'