Woman Tells Tampa Police She Was Raped, Then She Is Jailed For Outstanding Warrant

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,245
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Way to go there Tampa police. How's that for law enforcement? To add further incredible insult, she is also refused a second dose of the morning after pill.

They actually need to write a new policy to cover that. How about some common sense and decency in spite of policy-that might work.


The Associated Press
Updated: 3:28 p.m. ET Jan 30, 2007

TAMPA, Fla. - A woman who told police she had been raped was jailed for two days after officers found an old warrant accusing her of failing to pay restitution for a 2003 theft arrest.

While she was behind bars, according to the college student’s attorney, a jail worker refused to give her a second dose of the morning-after contraceptive pill because of the worker’s religious convictions.

The 21-year-old woman was released Monday only after attorney Vic Moore reported her plight to the local media.

“Shocked. Stunned. Outraged. I don’t have words to describe it,” Moore said. “She is not a victim of any one person. She is a victim of the system. There’s just got to be some humanity involved when it’s a victim of rape.”

Moore said the woman was not allowed to take the second emergency contraceptive pill until Monday afternoon, a day late, after reporters called police and jail officials.

Tampa police said they were changing their policy to give officers more discretion on when to arrest a crime victim who has outstanding warrants.

“Obviously, any policy that allows a sexual battery victim to spend a night in jail is a flawed policy,” police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said. “So our city attorney is writing a new policy right now.”

The woman is not being identified by The Associated Press because she reported being the victim of a sex crime.

Moore said it was too soon to say if his client would sue.

She was in Tampa on Saturday for Gasparilla, an annual pirate-themed parade that draws thousands of people. She said she was walking alone to her car when a man pulled her behind a building and raped her, McElroy said.

She reported the rape Saturday afternoon, and officers took her to a rape crisis center where she was given the first of two doses of the morning-after pill, McElroy said. The second dose is supposed to be taken within 24 hours.

Later, as she was riding in a patrol car trying to locate the crime scene in the dark, police found the warrant stemming from a 2003 juvenile arrest for grand theft and burglary. It said she owed $4,585.

“They stopped the investigation right there,” and put her in handcuffs, Moore said.

He said his client believes she paid the fine for what he described as a childish mistake. He didn’t have details of that arrest, but the woman has no criminal history as an adult, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Jail officials did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday.
 
The jail worker should get charged for not giving her the pill.
His/Her religious beliefs are no excuse at all.

It's unbelievable that for the police the $4,000 charge was more important than a rape.
 
I read about this in the Tampa paper...yeah, that was one seriously f*ed-up judgment call on the police department's part. I'm also puzzled as to why an alleged failure to pay restitution wouldn't have been followed up on much earlier, anyhow; grand theft and burglary are felonies.

Apparently at least one of the arresting officers, as well as the jail nurse who refused to give the morning-after pill, were women--you'd like to think that would've perhaps made them more sensitive to the sick absurdity of the situation, but I guess in this case not.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying I agree with their actions at all, but I'm curious what people think the alternative should have been? Ignore the outstanding arrest warrant? Waive the fine altogether? Pretend they didn't know?

IMO, and outstanding arrest warrant is an outstanding arrest warrant and I don't think it's a patrol officers call whether or not the warrant is fair or should/should not be executed. Also, as terrible as the situation is, alleged rape is what it is - alleged - until proven in a court of law. This is a really sticky situation.

I'm a woman and as much as I'd like to side with the victim in this case, even say the warrant should have been ignored, there've been more than one high profile cases recently where men's lives have been destroyed because accusations were treated like convictions, and investigations get so fucked up when people try to make their own judgment calls. It sucks, it seems cold, harsh, and insensitive, but the criminal justice and legal system should always remain as objective as possible, going both ways.

It's unbelievable that for the police the $4,000 charge was more important than a rape.

Yes, but it's not really their call. Patrol officers have a duty to follow through on these warrants. They're not sex crimes detectives and not working for the DA, so they simply don't have the power to decide that a) a rape did in fact exist and b) the warrant should be ignored. Again, I'm not saying I agree with how the situation was handled, or that they couldn't have treated her with a bit more dignity, but imagine what precedent it would set if people get off the hook when something traumatic occurs.

I'm glad they are changing their arrest policies. It's sad this had to happen to the victim in order for that to happen.

My biggest issue here is a jail worker denying her the morning after pill. Even if it's against his/her (idiotic) religious convictions, the pill is standard rape kit procedure. Why would you work, or be allowed to work, for the criminal justice system if you had objections to basic procedures?!
 
In my opinion they should have gone to the hospital with her.
There the doctors can find out whether she got raped.
I didn't say, or intend to say, they should've let her go.
They could easily have gone after the rape allegation, and later after the outstanding restitution warrant.
But what they did was just, finding out there is this restitution warrant, so they dropped the investigation of the rape incident and brought her to jail.

As a police officer you can't say "Rape is not my business." Then you have to pass the investigation on.
That didn't mean they couldn't have gone after the restitution warrant at all, just do one step after the other.
 
^ Right. I do appreciate the seriousness of the warrant, which is why I was wondering how that was apparently let slide for 4 years to begin with--don't they normally follow up on it when someone fails to pay restitution for a felony? I have no idea how that sort of thing is usually handled, but it seems strange to me.

As far as what they should have done instead, I think the main point here (which it would seem they agree with, since they're now changing their policy) is simply that they shouldn't be summarily tossing rape victims in jail before completing the usual rape investigation procedures (like checking out the crime scene) and ensuring the victim has had the usual opportunities to avail herself of crisis intervention services. As far as what the enforcement alternatives might have been concerning the warrant, I don't personally know enough about how that sort of thing is typically handled to speculate. Rape is rape and the trauma to the victim (which is why guidelines for how to work with rape victims exist, after all) is not going to be any less simply because she has a prior criminal record.

Treating accusations like convictions is not really a relevant risk here it seems to me, since the woman didn't know the described attacker and any awful mistakes in identifying suspects which might conceivably occur aren't likely to be influenced one way or the other by her own previous conviction.
 
yolland said:
^ Right. I do appreciate the seriousness of the warrant, which is why I was wondering how that was apparently let slide for 4 years to begin with--don't they normally follow up on it when someone fails to pay restitution for a felony? I have no idea how that sort of thing is usually handled, but it seems strange to me.

Yes, they do go after people, but there's only so much time and resources any department has to waste before letting it go. Say they've spent a month searching for the person and by that time, murders and rapes have occurred. They have to use their time and resources where they can be used best, and hope that the person turns him/herself in, gets caught on a simple traffic violation, or otherwise turns up eventually. If every police department looked for those with outstanding warrants until these people were found, we'd have no patrol officers or detectives available for the new crimes being committed.


I hope my other post doesn't sound too harsh, I really am on her side here. But I have lots of family in law enforcement, including a police captain uncle who ran the county jail, and it so often happens that it's the cops who are just doing their jobs as they've been told who get blamed or accused for everything, when it's the system itself that needs to be changed. They have a duty to carry out certain orders; we can't expect them to disobey these orders or decide for themselves what is "right" in every situation. I'm glad that Tampa is already working on how these types of situations will be handled in the future.

Vincent, I would assume they did take her to have a rape kit done. That's where the victims get the morning after pills. From the article:
She reported the rape Saturday afternoon, and officers took her to a rape crisis center where she was given the first of two doses of the morning-after pill, McElroy said.

However, many victims refuse rape kits ("going to the hospital") for many reasons. The police cannot force someone to have a rape kit done, but it sounds like it was done in this case and if not, they obviously would have suggested it.
 
That is a good point about not blaming people for carrying out non-negotiable orders (and you could extend that to other arenas besides law enforcement, too; people in all kinds of authority positions often get blamed for enforcing things they're duty-bound to enforce). It sounds, though, like the problem in this case was that there weren't clear orders--the police department did have an existing policy against arresting violent crime victims on outstanding misdemeanor warrants, but no specific guidelines for felony warrants, and apparently the officers involved reasoned that therefore they should arrest her. So it seems there really was a judgment call involved here, and IMHO the wrong one. As I said, I don't know enough about how this kind of thing is usually handled to suggest what else they could've done, but nothing I've read suggests that this was clearly their only option per the rules.

It's true she did get a medical exam at the rape crisis center, but according to her attorney at least, no counseling, and no opportunity later to call their hotline either, since as an inmate she could only make collect calls.
 
Anyone know the thinking behind why the rape crisis center where she was taken and given the first of two doses of the morning after pill didn't give her the second part when she was there? Or did they and then when she was put in jail it was taken from her and the chick with the chip wouldn't give it to her?
 
According to the Tampa paper,
Hillsborough County sheriff's spokeswoman Debbie Carter could not comment about that allegation or anything else about the woman's medical situation because of the federal health information privacy act. However, she said all medications are confiscated from inmates upon their arrival until they are verified.
 
I cannot believe for one second that their only option was to pursue the warrant charge while halting the rape claim. That cannot be procedural. There's more than just the system to blame. The 'system' is flawed everywhere, that's a given. A criminal charge cannot take a backseat to outstandings. A criminal charge like that falls under the highest code here, if it were on site. It is simply beyond comprehension that this is procedural. Unreal.
 
indra said:
Anyone know the thinking behind why the rape crisis center where she was taken and given the first of two doses of the morning after pill didn't give her the second part when she was there? Or did they and then when she was put in jail it was taken from her and the chick with the chip wouldn't give it to her?

I read an update a few minutes ago. The matron wouldn't give her the third dose they had taken away. Now the parents are involved and have receipts for several payments made when due, though they haven't said whether it was in full. Still it's disgusting that she was taken out of her hopital room and wasn't able to be held there for a time while she was being treated.
 
I just think its horrible that the medication was taken away from her and then not given back to her - as it is a very important thing she needs (ie if a person had a heart problem, or was diabetic, im sure they would get it back as it is essential to their health)

While I don't think they should have let her go, or waiver any amount she owes, the fact they just stopped an investigation of a rape, for a bit of money is just wrong. What if the rapist is now out of the county or whatever, purely because they didn't want to help a 'criminal'? I think the standards are all over the place!
 
I understand that police officers have a very difficult job, and I don't intend to bash them. There are great ones, and all of them face extremely difficult situations on a daily and hourly basis.

But their duty is to protect and to serve-and the officers involved here certainly didn't serve this woman. Allegations aren't crimes, but they still need to be handled with sensitivity and decency. When police officers treat someone like they treated her, it creates a mistrust to say the least. And it's just one more example of why rape victims don't want to go to the police. Not to mention that stopping the investigation right there probably hindered the possibility of catching the alleged rapist.

She owed money-what is money compared to an alleged rape? What was she going to do, flee? After she was allegedly raped? I really have to wonder if they tended to disbelieve her rape allegation just because she had an outstanding warrant. That's sort of the elephant in the room.
 
Liesje said:
I'm not saying I agree with their actions at all, but I'm curious what people think the alternative should have been? Ignore the outstanding arrest warrant? Waive the fine altogether? Pretend they didn't know?

IMO, and outstanding arrest warrant is an outstanding arrest warrant and I don't think it's a patrol officers call whether or not the warrant is fair or should/should not be executed. Also, as terrible as the situation is, alleged rape is what it is - alleged - until proven in a court of law. This is a really sticky situation.

I'm a woman and as much as I'd like to side with the victim in this case, even say the warrant should have been ignored, there've been more than one high profile cases recently where men's lives have been destroyed because accusations were treated like convictions, and investigations get so fucked up when people try to make their own judgment calls. It sucks, it seems cold, harsh, and insensitive, but the criminal justice and legal system should always remain as objective as possible, going both ways.



Yes, but it's not really their call. Patrol officers have a duty to follow through on these warrants. They're not sex crimes detectives and not working for the DA, so they simply don't have the power to decide that a) a rape did in fact exist and b) the warrant should be ignored. Again, I'm not saying I agree with how the situation was handled, or that they couldn't have treated her with a bit more dignity, but imagine what precedent it would set if people get off the hook when something traumatic occurs.

I'm glad they are changing their arrest policies. It's sad this had to happen to the victim in order for that to happen.

My biggest issue here is a jail worker denying her the morning after pill. Even if it's against his/her (idiotic) religious convictions, the pill is standard rape kit procedure. Why would you work, or be allowed to work, for the criminal justice system if you had objections to basic procedures?!

:up: it's not the police officer's job to be judge and jury.

this is a truly awful situation, and i wouldn't have faulted the police if they had let her go, but i can't fault them for putting her in jail either... just because you are now a victim of a crime, as heinous and awful of a crime it may be, does not mean that you are now off the hook for crimes you may have committed in the past, as petty as they may be.

and even if a judge wants to throw the petty crime out, that's the judge's decision... not the police officer's.

as for not getting the second pill, whoever refused that should be seriously reprimanded. that's BS. that's complete contradiction to my first argument... it's not the cop's job to judge. the treatment is legal and she should have been given the pills.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:


:up: it's not the police officer's job to be judge and jury.

this is a truly awful situation, and i wouldn't have faulted the police if they had let her go, but i can't fault them for putting her in jail either... just because you are now a victim of a crime, as heinous and awful of a crime it may be, does not mean that you are now off the hook for crimes you may have committed in the past, as petty as they may be.


Well, the question really is what the orders for the police officers were.
The only thing I really can't understand is, why they totally stopped investigating the rape incident.
She was at the rape crisis center, so I'm sure some specialist looked at her and confirmed the rape.
Then, police found out that there still was this restitution warrant, and suddenly all investigation in the rape incident was dropped and she was sentenced for the outstanding payment.

At least that is how I understand the article.
I would never say they have to drop the restitution warrant, but there was no reason to drop the rape investigation either. That should then be passed on to the police's rape unit.

Or maybe the article is misleading, or I didn't understand it correctly, and they still did some further investigations.

For the day-after pill incident: The person that refused to give her the pill is doing the wrong job.
 
Police play judge and jury all the time, making judgments about people that may or not be based upon personal bias, experience, etc. To think they don't is sort of naive.

The rape investigation should have been the priority over the warrant-like I said, where was she going? And my understanding is that she owed money, she wasn't wanted for any other reason besides the money. And if you want to boil it down to level of crimes, rape (alleged) is more heinous than outstanding criminal debt.

Sometimes the letter of the law should be colored by some sensitivity. That's one reason that people like police officers undergo sensitivity training.
 
I do not understand why they are mutually exclusive. She should have been treated like any other victim of the crime. She should also have been arrested.

Why would one prevent the continuance of what needed to be done for the other?

I do not believe one thing trumps the other. The warrent should not be ignored.
 
^ Well, it would seem the police department disagrees with you, because they've now officially altered their policy to permit postponing arrests on felony warrants in cases like this. (At no time was anyone suggesting the felony warrant should simply have been permanently disregarded.)
Tampa Tribune, Jan 31, 2007

...The officers acted under a 2002 policy advising they could use discretion and not arrest victims of "significant crimes" when outstanding misdemeanor warrants are discovered, police said. The policy did not address felony warrants. That was wrong, police said Tuesday. "It became very clear that our policy is flawed if it allowed someone who is the victim of a sexual assault to end up in the Hillsborough County jail," police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said. "Anyone who is a victim of crime, we're here to serve them and help them."

When pressed, McElroy said, "Yes, it's an apology."

A new policy enacted Tuesday about active warrants on victims of crime states a shift commander - who carries the rank of lieutenant or above - should weigh the degree of physical or mental injury a person has suffered against the circumstances of a warrant for a traffic offense, misdemeanor or felony property crime. "Postponing arrest may be the appropriate course of action," Assistant City Attorney Kirby Rainsberger wrote in a legal opinion about the new policy distributed to all officers. Crime victims wanted on charges of homicide, sexual battery, armed robbery, child abuse and similar offenses will be arrested immediately, "albeit with due regard for the subject's condition," Rainsberger wrote.

Mayor Pam Iorio said the circumstances of each case will be weighed, but, overall, "the needs of the victim should always come first...Common sense is going to have to prevail...This never should happen again," Iorio said. "I don't believe the seriousness of the charge warranted the steps that were taken...What occurred to her and how to help her is where the emphasis should have been."
I think a major part of the concern here, which MrsS already touched on, is that rape is the most underreported violent crime in the US. The Department of Justice, on the basis of discrepancies between reporting statistics and the results of its annual random sampling surveys, has consistently estimated for at least a decade now that only about a quarter of rapes are reported. The most commonly cited reasons for not reporting a rape are "I didn't think anything could really be done," "I didn't want others to know," and "I was afraid to go to the police."

Those kinds of statistics are very distressing to law enforcement officials because, obviously, it's in the interests of their work to get as many people as possible reporting it when they've been victims of a violent crime. A case like this can only further hurt the chances of that, because it gives rape victims who happen to have any sort of prior criminal record yet another reason to hesitate to come forward. It isn't a question of holding outstanding warrants procedures hostage to some later misfortune befalling the offender; again, at no point was there any suggestion that follow-through on that should simply be dispensed with altogether.
 
Last edited:
Yes it could have easily just been postponed, I was never suggesting they just forget about it. The larger issue of women being afraid to go to the police about rape is a much more critical one in my opinion than an outstanding warrant for four thousand whatever. I don't think most people realize how difficult it still is for most rape victims to come forward, and they need the police to be sensitive and they need to be able to trust them. I would think for one thing that this incident would stop anyone with an outstanding warrant from going to the police if they were raped.

Good for them for recognizing that this was wrong and for changing the policy, it's just such a shame that this woman had to go through that before that happened.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Police play judge and jury all the time, making judgments about people that may or not be based upon personal bias, experience, etc. To think they don't is sort of naive.

Absolutely.

And I dont agree one doesn't trump the other. A 20 year jailable criminal offence is not equal to unpaid fines, or a misdemeanor. Good God. The discretion of police officers must be continually assessed.
 
Again, you can be arrested, and not be brought into the jail cell. I do have a problem with her being sent to a cell, when she needed treatment.

Its kind of common sense....

At least, that is how I would have thought it through if I were still a policeman.
 
She walked out of jail hiding her face with a paper bag. A woman who says she was raped had to do that. And there is some question now as to whether she did pay the restitution and it wasn't entered into the court docket, maybe yolland has some more info on that. Allegedly the female cop who had her in the car didn't want to make the arrest and her lieutenant (a male) said she had to. That was a judgment call, and a very poor one in my opinion. Temper that justice with some mercy.

A woman in St Petersburg Florida who was raped was jailed in 2001 when she had an outstanding warrant for her dog being loose. A loose dog, and she had been raped, and they put her in jail. A very sad state of affairs.
 
Back
Top Bottom