Since the topic has come up, I thought I’d pass along the list I have of state statutes that impose a duty to rescue crime victims, or report crimes. This might help people see the different ways these duties have been crafted in the past — generally quite narrowly, but sometimes more broadly.
I focus on duties applicable to the general public, and do not include special duties imposed on particular categories of people, such as doctors, teachers, and the like. These are all the statutes I know of, but there might well be others.
Note that, unless otherwise specified, the statutes will likely apply only when the person actually believes that he is (or at least might well be) witnessing a crime or emergency. If he is reasonably mistaken about what’s going on, he’ll (theoretically) be off the hook; and under most of the statutes — the ones that don’t specifically limit this to a reasonable mistake — this would be true even if he is honestly but unreasonably mistaken about what’s going on.
| Law | Covered situations | Scope of duty | Exceptions or limitations | Penalty |
| California Penal Code § 152.3 | Any person who reasonably believes that he or she has observed the commission of [murder, rape, or lewd conduct with an under-14-year-old by use of violence or threat] where the victim is a child under the age of 14 years | shall notify [or attempt to notify] a peace officer | [but not if doing so would] affect privileged relationships as provided by law [or if the person] is related to either the victim or the offender, including a husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent, grandchild, or other person related by consanguinity or affinity [or if the person] fails to report based on a reasonable fear for his or her own safety or for the safety of his or her family [or if the person] fails to report based on a reasonable mistake of fact | up to 6 months in jail, up to $1500 fine, or both |
| Florida Stat. Ann. ch. 794.027 | A person who observes the commission of the crime of sexual battery and who ... [h]as reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has observed the commission of a sexual battery | [shall, if possible,] seek assistance for the victim or victims by immediately reporting such offense to a law enforcement officer | [unless he would] be exposed to any threat of physical violence for seeking such assistance [or is] the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, or sister of the offender or victim, by consanguinity or affinity [or is] the victim | up to 1 year in jail (first-degree misdemeanor) |
| Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 663–1.6 | Any person at the scene of a crime who knows that a victim of the crime is suffering from serious physical harm | shall obtain or attempt to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel | if the person can do so without danger or peril to any person | petty misdemeanor penalties |
| Massachusetts Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 268, § 40, ch. 269, § 18 | Whoever knows that another person is a victim of aggravated rape, rape, murder, manslaughter or armed robbery [or hazing] and is at the scene of said crime | shall report said crime to an appropriate law enforcement official as soon as reasonably practicable | to the extent that said person can do so without danger or peril to himself or others | $500 to $2500 fine [or up to $1000 fine as to hazing] |
| Minnesota Stat. Ann. § 604A.01 | A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm | shall ... give reasonable assistance to the exposed person[, which] may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel | to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others | petty misdemeanor penalties |
| Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.22 | [Any] person, knowing that a felony [or one of a list of computer hacking offenses] has been or is being committed [or any person who discovers a dead body], | shall ... report such information to law enforcement authorities | [except if the information arises in a privileged relationship, such as attorney-client or husband-wife, or the information would tend to incriminate a member of the actor’s immediate family] | fourth-degree misdemeanor penalties |
| Rhode Island Stat. §§ 11–1-5.1, 11–56-1 | A person who knows that another person is a victim of sexual assault, murder, manslaughter, or armed robbery and who is at the scene of the crime [or a]ny person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to, or has suffered, grave physical harm | shall ... report the crime to an appropriate law enforcement official as soon as reasonably practicable [or, as to the emergency provision,] give reasonable assistance to the [victim] | to the extent that the person can do so without danger of peril to the person or others | up to 6 months in jail, or a fine of $500 to $1000 |
| Vermont Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 519 | A person who knows that another is exposed to grave physical harm | shall ... give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others | to the extent that the [assistance] can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others | fine of up to $100 |
| Washington Rev. Code Ann. § 9.69.100(1) | A person who witnesses the actual commission of: (a) A violent offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030 or preparations for the commission of such an offense; (b) A sexual offense against a child or an attempt to commit such a sexual offense; or (c) An assault of a child that appears reasonably likely to cause substantial bodily harm to the child, shall as soon as reasonably possible notify the prosecuting attorney, law enforcement, medical assistance, or other public officials | shall as soon as reasonably possible notify [or attempt to notify] the prosecuting attorney, law enforcement, medical assistance, or other public officials | [but this shall not] affect privileged relationships as provided by law [and] a person is not required to report under this section where that person has a reasonable belief that making such a report would place that person or another family or household member in danger of immediate physical harm | gross midemeanor penalties |
| Wisconsin Stat. Ann. § 940.34 | Any person who knows that a crime is being committed and that a victim is exposed to bodily harm | shall summon law enforcement officers or other assistance or shall provide assistance to the victim [unless] assistance is being summoned or provided by others | [unless c]ompliance would place him or her in danger [or] would interfere with duties the person owes to others. | class C misdemeanor penalties |
Ricardo says:
Is there any evidence that these laws work in the real world? My understanding has always been that police have the most difficulty getting information from witnesses in neighborhoods infested with gangs and drug dealers. Those potential witnesses can quite plausibly claim their lives are in danger if they so much as have a friendly conversation with a cop and are seen doing so by a gang member or a friend of a gang member. Since these laws have an exception for people in genuine fear of their lives, they may well be toothless in the majority of cases where witness reluctance to report a crime is an issue. For that matter, has the Massachusetts law requiring reporting of “hazing” done anything to mitigate frat hazing on Massachusetts campuses? I’m skeptical that these laws do much good.
In light of the civil case that Eugene blogged about a while ago — where a store-owner was held liable for triggering a silent alarm that alerted police to an armed robbery in progress that ultimately led to the shooting death of an innocent person — these laws can leave people in a tight spot. Make a snap decision and you might face a hefty civil judgment on the one hand or an arrest and possible criminal conviction on the other.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 12:53 amOren says:
These all seem a far cry from the parade of horribles envisioned in the previous thread.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 12:58 amStormy Dragon says:
Interesting to note that these are nearly all states seen as solidly left. The two exceptions (Ohio and Florida) are right in the middle. No right states at all.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 1:17 amStormy Dragon says:
On a more legal issue, could these laws pass scrutiny under the fifth ammendment protection against self-incrimination in light of Ohio v. Reiner? Even if one was not involved in the crime being reported, it could expose the reporter to other investigation (e.g. “So how come you were on the street in a drug zone at 2am?”)
There’s also Raffel v United States. If you offer yourself as a witness, you waive your fourth and fifth ammendment rights and cannot later reclaim them. Can you then be compelled to offer yoruself as a witness?
Quote
November 3, 2009, 1:27 amvassil_petrov says:
Here is some similar articles of the Bulgarian Penal Code (this English translation is from 2005, rather old):
Art. 137. Who puts in jeopardy a person unable to protect himself for reasons of being minor, superannuated, sick, or generally, being helpless, in such a way that his life can be in danger and being aware of it he does not come to his assistance, shall be punished by imprisonment of up to three years.
Art. 138. Who deliberately does not render assistance to a person of whom he is obliged to take care and who is in danger of his life, and who is unable to protect himself for reasons of being minor, superannuated, sick, or generally, being helpless, in the cases when he could have rendered assistance, shall be punished by imprisonment of up to one year or by corrective labour.
Art. 139. (Amend., SG 28/82; SG 10/93; amend., SG 92/02) Who, in immediate danger for the life of somebody else, does not come to the assistance which could have been rendered without a danger for himself or for somebody else shall be punished by corrective labour for up to six months or by a fine of one hundred to three hundred levs.
Art. 140. A driver of vehicle who, after a traffic accident in which he took part, does not render the necessary assistance to the injured person, which could have been rendered without a danger for himself or for somebody else shall be punished by imprisonment of up to one year or by corrective labour.
Art. 141. (1) (Amend., SG 28/82; SG 10/93; amend., SG 92/02) If a person practising medical profession, after being invited, does not come to the assistance of a sick person or of a woman in labour without a valid reason shall be punished by corrective labour or by a fine of one hundred to three hundred levs.
(2) If the culprit has been aware that the sick person or the woman in labour were in a dangerous state the punishment shall be imprisonment of up to one year or corrective labour.
(3) (Amend., SG 28/82; SG 10/93; amend., SG 92/02) Who, being obliged to render assistance to a sick person, does not render such assistance without valid reasons shall be punished by corrective labour for up to six months or by a fine of one hundred to three hundred levs.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 2:11 amvassil_petrov says:
Also:
Art. 275. (Amend., SG 28/82; SG 10/93; amend., SG 92/02) (1) Who, being obliged by law to render assistance to a body of the authority, private bailiff or deputy bailiff, does not oblige after being duly invited, shall be punished by corrective labour or by a fine of one hundred to three hundred levs.
(2) Who, after being invited by the respective official in a case dangerous for the life, health or property of somebody, refuses to come to the assistance which he can give without any danger for himself or for another, shall be punished by corrective labour or by a fine of one hundred to three hundred levs.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 2:15 amLargo says:
Oh, I just love that term “reasonable”.
I trust you can feel my sarcasm.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 2:53 amMark N. says:
It looks like only MN, RI, VT, and WI mention an actual “duty to rescue” in the literal sense, while the others might be something more like a “duty to report”. Ignoring the duty-to-reports for the moment, has anyone in the modern era ever been convicted of actually failing to provide assistance themselves?
Quote
November 3, 2009, 3:20 amSplunge says:
Some of these statutes seem crafted to more or less compel teachers and physicians and ER staff to report sexual assaults or child abuse to the authorities.
As such, I think the logic is actually to give some kind of cover and compulsion to these folks. Not rarely, they are the first to discover evidence of a crime, and do so through establishment of a trusting confidential relationship with the victim which will be seriously threatened or ruptured by the disclosure of the information to the authorities. The practictioner or teacher may struggle with weighing the good of getting the authorities involved with the betrayal of trust involved, not to mention the personal trauma of being the complaining witness in, say, a child abuse case in your own community — perhaps even against people you know.
These kind of laws would seem to assert the legislature’s intent that the struggle be resolved in favor of reporting, and also to give psychological cover to both practitioners and victims: see, we have to report this, so if I’m breaking trust with you, it’s not my decision — I don’t have any choice! The victim’s confessing the crime in these situation may also involve violating a trust relationship (with the criminal), and the chain of compulsion — you can’t treated without complete information, and the information must be reported — may relieve him of guilt in breaking that. Yes, it sounds crazy to be worried about betraying the trust of someone who is abusing you, but that’s how people in that situation, particularly children and enabling spouses think.
Cases like these are also where the rubber really hits the road in terms of putative duties to report. It’s not really the Kitty Genovese problem, where you might argue you’ve an adult victim who, in the normal course of things, is no one’s responsibility, and where you might question whether his mere becoming a victim creates a responsibility on the part of bystanders.
It’s more like being the neighbor of the crazy in Antioch who kidnapped an 11-year-old girl and kept her captive behind his house for 18 years, while he raped her and sired two children on her. You can’t help knowing something is not quite right — the muffled cries at night bother you — but you talk yourself into not getting involved. Or you’re a kindergarten teacher, and you see a child coming to school some days looking pale and sick, with what look like bruises on his face, and he gives curious answers when you ask how he hurt himself. You know his parents quite well — they’ve been your neighbors for years, serve on the PTA board that raises a lot of money for your school, and the mother is a loan officer that helped you get your loan. So...you decide maybe he did get those bruises walking into trees. Who knows? Kids do funny things.
I don’t think people in such situations who fail to come forward are necessarily bad or unsympathetic. They may just be weak, and quail before the unquestioned harsh cost of doing so. The law may be seen as a bit of “back stiffener” for some folks, telling them it’s the great and grand wish of The People that they do so. It’s not the punishment that compels, I suggest, but the statement that the state might sanction you a hero for doing so (and demon for not doing so) that motivates.
I’m not averring this logic is sound, nor that these laws are good or bad. But I am suggesting if you want to consider the true impact of duties to report, it should be in the context of people who cannot report for themselves, and to whom it’s not unreasonable to say all adults have some kind of pre-existing role of responsibility, such as children.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 4:47 ampublic_defender says:
It would be interesting to see how these interface with a person’s right not to self-incriminate.
How long is too long to wait before calling the police? 10 second? 30 seconds? A minute? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? An hour? If you wait even 10 seconds to call, have you delayed too long? An aggressive prosecutor might say so depending on the facts, which means calling could incriminate you, which means you might have a Fifth Amendment right not to call.
Also, unless a witness calls immediately, that witness has potentially committed a crime, and therefore might have a Fifth Amendment right not to talk to the police or prosecutors (or to testify in court) absent compliance with appropriate immunity statutes.
Well meaning statutes can have unintended consequences.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 7:27 amJoseph Slater says:
Very interesting stuff, thank for taking the time to compile and post this information.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 9:53 amtexasfox82 says:
any chance you could give us Texas’ view?
Quote
November 3, 2009, 10:36 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
I wonder how many states are like Indiana (not on the list) which imposes a duty to report child abuse or neglect (I.C. 31–33-5–1), not in the criminal code, but in the Juvenile Code.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 10:40 amTruePath says:
Did anyone here read the prior post. Unintended consequences are the whole point.
My sucpiscion is that general duty to report laws end up being a slight negative and the computer hacking report requirements are especially stupid. I mean it’s basically an obligation on the victim (anyone who knows about the attack is at one end or the other and the attacker’s buddy isn’t going to rat) and I suspect encourages corporate IT people not to talk to law enforcement since they can’t possibly report every attempted hacking attempt against them.
However, I’d guess that the Vermont type duty to aid may actually be a net positive by nudging the people who might fear getting involved or the possibility of civil liability if they botched the aid. Moreover, I doubt the fear of a misdemeanor conviction for failing to give aid will have any negative consequences as it will likely be overshadowed by the individuals shame (when distant from the event the fears of getting involved seem less reasonable).
Quote
November 3, 2009, 11:29 amParatrooperJJ says:
It seems to me that if it is a crime to not report a felony, then if you don’t immediately report a crime, then the duty to report disapears because of 5th ammendment protections?
Quote
November 3, 2009, 11:30 amTruePath says:
Splunge:
I think you are right on the money about providing a cover for people. I mean the fact the law exists lets doctors teachers and others avoid the akwardness of having to turn down someone’s pleas not to report some incident. I mean when some woman comes in with a gunshot wound and begs the doctor not to report it because it was just an accident that her husband shot her it puts the doc in an akward place so it’s easier on them if they have no choice in the matter.
But I take issue with your analysis of people who don’t report.
I don’t know about you but I’ve never lived in a house where I could hear the neighbors having sex with the windows closed on the second floor much less the basement. So I don’t buy the claim that the neighbors would hear muffled cries at night, even if we assume the abused girl gave such cries (usually the captivity is psychological as much as physical). Even if you do hear cries coming out of your neighbors house how do you interpret them? Maybe your neighbor likes kinky sex and is whipping some consenting adult, or maybe they have some horror movie turned up really loud.
I mean I lived across the street for awhile from this weird guy who had a huge chain link fence around the whole place, was clearly a racist (would come over and complain about the blacks sometimes), and had this russian bride who one rarely saw. He certainly could have been abusing her and I wouldn’t know. However, you can’t just report someone because they have a creepy personality and foreign wife.
After the fact it’s really easy to look back and say these people should have known. However, prospectively the rarity of this kind of severe abuse (kept in basement all life) means that even hearing screams of “help me help me” an innocent explanation is far more likely than a criminal one (a fact which will unfortunately affect prosecutions under these laws).
The problem is suggesting that someone is abusing their wife/kid/etc.. is a grievous insult. It’s not something you can do lightly and despite your implication there are times kids hurt themselves and then act evasive for totally innocent reasons (they were doing something wrong and don’t want to admit it...they hurt themselves trying to use the restroom and feel it’s vulgar to talk about). Worse with even the suggestion that someone might be abusing their child you can turn someone’s life upside down. And since no one is ever willing to even appear to suggest you shouldn’t report some sucpiscion you can’t even get decent guidance about when you should report.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 12:04 pmNo more victims says:
okay, in my mind, someone who observes someone beaten to a bloody pulp and fails to do something to stop the assault and start the process which will punish the criminals becomes, at least in a moral sense, an accomplice to the crime.
why not impose civil liability here? the victim (or victim’s estate, or victim’s insurance company) should be able to recover not only from the attackers, but also from anyone who stood by and let it happen and did nothing.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 12:15 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » What About Bystanders Who Photographed the Richmond Gang Rape? says:
[...] Of course, the child pornography statutes weren’t enacted with this situation in mind. But one rationale for such statutes fully applies here: “First, the materials produced are a permanent record of the children’s participation [in the making of the child pornography] and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation.” Certainly the taking of the pictures, and the accompanying risk that the pictures would be distributed still further, is a separate harm quite separate from the photographers’ failure to call the police (a failure that isn’t itself a crime in California). [...]
Dennis N says:
Then why should not I, as a potential rescuer, have a liability claim against the victim for negligently endangering me by being mugged?
Going to the mandated reporter case, say where you’re required to report child abuse, there is another justification for not reporting. It is the fear of doing more harm to the victim. The evils of the Children & Family Services crowd and their legion of evil foster parents is well known — even if it is not true.
When I was a Mandated Reporter, I had this discussion with other MRs. The concensus seemed to be that we would be very careful what we “saw,” and report when we were morally convinced that we would be likely to do more good than harm.
I can see the same argument for failure to respond or report other crimes. “It’s a domestic, she stays with him, It’s not all that bad, I’ll only make it worse.” The arguments are not necessarily valid, but they represent a value judgement on the part of the potential intervenor.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 4:50 pmChrisTS says:
Most of these statutes specify ‘knowledge’ of the crime or being a witness to it. If all such laws were framed in these terms, wouldn’t that obviate the imagined cases in which people who did not know of or witness crime might be liable for failing to report?
At the very least, I think we ought to be able to require that someone who witnesses violence against another citizen report it as quickly as possible. And, so called ‘good samaritan’ laws can protect those who fulfill their duty from absurd subsequent civil liability.
Quote
November 3, 2009, 6:25 pmuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by PTMaddiganEsq: wait a minute, there IS a duty to rescue ? Not what I learned in torts... http://bit.ly/3U3QA6...
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Duty to Rescue/Report Statutes -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by tysonsnow, Patrick T. Maddigan. Patrick T. Maddigan said: wait a minute, there IS a duty to rescue ? Not what I learned in torts... http://bit.ly/3U3QA6 [...]