Baby Missing After Carjacking in Georgetown Early This Evening (30th & M St. NW)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is all the blame here toward the mom warranted? This is what I read:

2D- Kidnapping / Stolen Auto

The Second District is investigating a Kidnapping and Stolen Auto that occurred on Friday, January 5, 2024, at approximately 1803 hours in the Unit block of 3000 M Street NW.

The complainant was traveling with her four-month-old daughter when a tire deflated on her rental vehicle, a white Jeep. She pulled over in the 3000 block of M St NW and exited the vehicle to ask for help. While outside the Jeep, which she left running, an unknown suspect entered the vehicle and drove away with her four-month-old daughter westbound on M St NW.

At approximately 1853 hours, MPD officers received a call that an unknown individual left the child, still in her car seat, in the 1500 block of 28th St SE with a note stating that the baby had been lost from Georgetown. After knocking on the door, the suspect fled. No lookout is available. The homeowners then took the child to the Sixth District Police substation. There is no available lookout for the complainant's vehicle at this time except that it was a white jeep of an unknown make and model.

If you have any information about this incident, please contact the Command Information Center at 202-727-9099 or send an anonymous text tip 50411

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is wild. Sounds like they knocked on the door and left the baby on the porch.

Glad it ended well. Wonder if the car will be torched on the PG border.

This is a really heartwarming turn of events. They did the right thing.

It's a rollercoaster of a story. They did do the right thing. Still feel horrified by the mom. some witnesses commented that she took her time smelling all the candles at La Labo, ran out clutching one when she saw her car was gone, and then came back in to talk to the Police there.

What witnesses? Do you have a link (l googled but didn’t find). Her behavior sounds too crazy to be true.

NP here. I read that in the comments of the Washingtonian problems insta page. I think it is in this particular post. https://www.instagram.com/p/C1vV3uBRXM6/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

The mother lied to the police, witnesses on social media reported that the mother was shopping and stopping to smell scents and test out items to purchase. The mother is the main source of culpability.

Agree the moms story doesn't make sense. How can a car with a flat tire be driven miles and miles (by the carjackers)? Why was she seen in La Labo by multiple witnesses if she was just checking the tire? Why did she stop there, instead of pull into a side street or something?

(The only way the moms story makes sense is if she knows she was in the wrong for leaving her baby alone in a running car, and she is desperate to reflect that blame, and that's what she came up with).

It is highly likely this is what happened. Mom panicked realizing that she was going to be in trouble for leaving her baby unattended in an idling car while she shopped and came up with a story. I’m a former prosecutor and while these perps if caught will probably be charged with kidnapping and theft, I would plead them out to theft (this wasn’t a carjacking if she was in the store shopping) and that’s it. I would be more incensed at Mom for being so reckless and endangering her baby, and would have no issue prosecuting her.

What could the mom be prosecuted for (assuming she left the baby in the car to shop)?

Second Degree Cruelty to Children (this is a bit of a stretch but it fits); Attempted Neglect. There was a case in DC like 10 years ago where parents left their kids in the car while they were at a wine tasting and they were charged with attempted neglect. The car wasn’t running in that case and no one stole that car and took the kids to SE.

I remember this! https://time.com/3693641/judging-couple-locked-kids-in-car/

I hadn't heard this one! The last line of that article is great.

OMG it is, I read that BITD. The thread here on the wine tasting couple was epic. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/444835.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby was left in the car seat on a street in SE but the car is still missing. Curious about where/with who?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Thank goodness she is safe.

I hope these guys get charged with kidnapping and child abuse, and get put away for a long time.

Sounds like these guys are on the loose joyriding in the jeep? At our councilmembers safety walk the USAO representative told us they can't charge carjackers cos when four sets of prints are found they don't know who the jacker was.. COMPLETE IMPUNITY and zero solutions offered.

Hope you told them what utter bullshit this was! 4sets of fingerprints? Arrest and charge them all, unless there is a reason for that fingerprint in the car. Are these people STUPID?

I’m a former prosecutor so I will take a crack at explaining why it is difficult to charge someone with carjacking based on fingerprints alone. When a car gets jacked by say several people who are masked and wearing generic dark clothing, the lookout for the suspects is obviously weak and the victim won’t be able to make an ID of people that did the carjacking. Then say the car is recovered the next day abandoned. The vehicle is printed and you get some hits off the prints. All you can prove is that the people whose prints were in the vehicle had been inside it at some point. You cannot prove that those people jacked the vehicle. You also can’t prove that they went joyriding in it after it was jacked because it was jacked with a key, so there wasn’t anything that would indicate to a passenger in the vehicle that the car was stolen. If, say the jackers weren’t masked and the victims got a look at the suspects, you can definitely put the people whose prints were found inside the car in photo arrays and show them to the victims and maybe they ID the jackers.

Thank you, I appreciate your comment. But, seriously?? I’m sorry, but this should be enough(the bolder). What do you mean WHO was doing the carjacking? How is this truly relevant? They obviously did it together. Working as a team. None of them had permission to be inside that car. Your (and the law’s) explanation makes it sound as if part of the theft team was then kidnapped. What nonsense is this!?

Ok, take a deep breath and think rationally. You have someone’s prints in a car that was carjacked. No one can ID any member of the group that was involved in the carjacking. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is whether the persons whose prints were in the car left them after the car was already carjacked and abandoned. The kids leave these cars abandoned after they are carjacked and people “jump in” all the time. Or the person whose prints were in it says omg, my buddy Joey picked me up in the car and we went to McDonalds and I didn’t know it was stolen, he had the keys. I get that it is more likely than not that the person whose prints are in the car was involved in the carjacking, but that is not the standard of proof.

Isn't "jumping in" to a car that doesn't belong to you also a crime? I don't jump into random cars. Do you?

It’s misdemeanor unlawful entry of a motor vehicle at worst, not carjacking. I’m trying to explain to those that are not familiar with the criminal justice system why fingerprints in a carjacked vehicle doesn’t translate to carjacking charges.

yeah I’m sure it’s uniquely difficult to prove carjacking in DC lol. anyway, with all the security cameras available it’s not hard to correlate a fingerprint with the images.

Of course if there is clear enough camera footage of the perps and their faces are visible or their clothing is unique, that is a different scenario. But if you scroll back up to the beginning of this thread the point I have been addressing is the idea that fingerprints alone is enough to charge and prove carjacking. It is not.

charge them and let them provide an alibi.

[Anonymous]

Fingerprints would be just part of the evidence. It would place someone in the car. Leading to a photo array (assuming the car jacker had a previous arrest, his booking prints linked to his photo). Once police know who this is they get a warrant to search his social media and his cell phone. Because these kids all talk about everything. A codefendant could be found during this media search. They can see if the person has been arrested with anyone else ever or who his fellow gang members are. That’s on top of video surveillance of the crime.
So a fingerprint is a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fingerprints would be just part of the evidence. It would place someone in the car. Leading to a photo array (assuming the car jacker had a previous arrest, his booking prints linked to his photo). Once police know who this is they get a warrant to search his social media and his cell phone. Because these kids all talk about everything. A codefendant could be found during this media search. They can see if the person has been arrested with anyone else ever or who his fellow gang members are. That’s on top of video surveillance of the crime.
So a fingerprint is a lot.

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is all the blame here toward the mom warranted? This is what I read:


2D- Kidnapping / Stolen Auto

The Second District is investigating a Kidnapping and Stolen Auto that occurred on Friday, January 5, 2024, at approximately 1803 hours in the Unit block of 3000 M Street NW.

The complainant was traveling with her four-month-old daughter when a tire deflated on her rental vehicle, a white Jeep. She pulled over in the 3000 block of M St NW and exited the vehicle to ask for help. While outside the Jeep, which she left running, an unknown suspect entered the vehicle and drove away with her four-month-old daughter westbound on M St NW.

At approximately 1853 hours, MPD officers received a call that an unknown individual left the child, still in her car seat, in the 1500 block of 28th St SE with a note stating that the baby had been lost from Georgetown. After knocking on the door, the suspect fled. No lookout is available. The homeowners then took the child to the Sixth District Police substation. There is no available lookout for the complainant's vehicle at this time except that it was a white jeep of an unknown make and model.

If you have any information about this incident, please contact the Command Information Center at 202-727-9099 or send an anonymous text tip 50411

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is wild. Sounds like they knocked on the door and left the baby on the porch.

Glad it ended well. Wonder if the car will be torched on the PG border.

This is a really heartwarming turn of events. They did the right thing.

It's a rollercoaster of a story. They did do the right thing. Still feel horrified by the mom. some witnesses commented that she took her time smelling all the candles at La Labo, ran out clutching one when she saw her car was gone, and then came back in to talk to the Police there.

What witnesses? Do you have a link (l googled but didn’t find). Her behavior sounds too crazy to be true.

NP here. I read that in the comments of the Washingtonian problems insta page. I think it is in this particular post. https://www.instagram.com/p/C1vV3uBRXM6/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

The mother lied to the police, witnesses on social media reported that the mother was shopping and stopping to smell scents and test out items to purchase. The mother is the main source of culpability.

Agree the moms story doesn't make sense. How can a car with a flat tire be driven miles and miles (by the carjackers)? Why was she seen in La Labo by multiple witnesses if she was just checking the tire? Why did she stop there, instead of pull into a side street or something?

(The only way the moms story makes sense is if she knows she was in the wrong for leaving her baby alone in a running car, and she is desperate to reflect that blame, and that's what she came up with).

It is highly likely this is what happened. Mom panicked realizing that she was going to be in trouble for leaving her baby unattended in an idling car while she shopped and came up with a story. I’m a former prosecutor and while these perps if caught will probably be charged with kidnapping and theft, I would plead them out to theft (this wasn’t a carjacking if she was in the store shopping) and that’s it. I would be more incensed at Mom for being so reckless and endangering her baby, and would have no issue prosecuting her.

You’d be harsher on the mother than the carjackers/kidnappers/child welfare endangers? They left the 4 month old baby outside in freezing weather. You’re sick. Misogyny against mothers is truly entrenched.

I’m sorry but it’s not a badge of feminism to defend what this mother did. It was criminal. And yes, I actually don’t find someone jumping into a car that someone left running with the keys in the ignition to be that much more problematic than deciding to leave your 4 month old in the car with it running while you go into a perfume store to shop. The car thieves realized the baby was in the car, took it to a home that was well lit with people inside, and knocked on the door so they would come out and see the baby there with a note that the baby was from Georgetown.

You’re disgusting that you think it’s totally fine to steal other peoples’ property. Put aside the kidnapping. F you for thinking you can just take a persons car. You seriously need help.

No one said taking the car was totally fine. There absolutely should be consequences for taking the car and hopefully this experience strikes some fear in them given that they also ended up kidnapping a baby (yes, it turned into kidnapping once they knew the baby was in the car and kept driving with her). There also should be consequences for leaving an infant alone in a running car while you go shop in a store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks, most crimes require intent - mens rea. It isn't kidnapping to steal a car you don't realize has a sleeping baby in the backseat. It just isn't, and it never will be.

Felony murder is a thing though. The people intent on robbery or other crimes don’t intend to kill anyone, and yet…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fingerprints would be just part of the evidence. It would place someone in the car. Leading to a photo array (assuming the car jacker had a previous arrest, his booking prints linked to his photo). Once police know who this is they get a warrant to search his social media and his cell phone. Because these kids all talk about everything. A codefendant could be found during this media search. They can see if the person has been arrested with anyone else ever or who his fellow gang members are. That’s on top of video surveillance of the crime.
So a fingerprint is a lot.

Correct, which I also explained in my original post. If the victim (not talking about this particular case) saw the carjackers, fingerprints definitely can get you to an array and a potential ID. I don’t know that prints in a carjacked car alone are enough probable cause for a warrant to get into a phone or social media, but many of the kids are dumb and don’t have their social media set to private. Fingerprints are an incredibly useful tool, but they are a tool, they are not the foundation for an entire prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby was left in the car seat on a street in SE but the car is still missing. Curious about where/with who?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Thank goodness she is safe.

I hope these guys get charged with kidnapping and child abuse, and get put away for a long time.

Sounds like these guys are on the loose joyriding in the jeep? At our councilmembers safety walk the USAO representative told us they can't charge carjackers cos when four sets of prints are found they don't know who the jacker was.. COMPLETE IMPUNITY and zero solutions offered.

Hope you told them what utter bullshit this was! 4sets of fingerprints? Arrest and charge them all, unless there is a reason for that fingerprint in the car. Are these people STUPID?

I’m a former prosecutor so I will take a crack at explaining why it is difficult to charge someone with carjacking based on fingerprints alone. When a car gets jacked by say several people who are masked and wearing generic dark clothing, the lookout for the suspects is obviously weak and the victim won’t be able to make an ID of people that did the carjacking. Then say the car is recovered the next day abandoned. The vehicle is printed and you get some hits off the prints. All you can prove is that the people whose prints were in the vehicle had been inside it at some point. You cannot prove that those people jacked the vehicle. You also can’t prove that they went joyriding in it after it was jacked because it was jacked with a key, so there wasn’t anything that would indicate to a passenger in the vehicle that the car was stolen. If, say the jackers weren’t masked and the victims got a look at the suspects, you can definitely put the people whose prints were found inside the car in photo arrays and show them to the victims and maybe they ID the jackers.

Thank you, I appreciate your comment. But, seriously?? I’m sorry, but this should be enough(the bolder). What do you mean WHO was doing the carjacking? How is this truly relevant? They obviously did it together. Working as a team. None of them had permission to be inside that car. Your (and the law’s) explanation makes it sound as if part of the theft team was then kidnapped. What nonsense is this!?

Ok, take a deep breath and think rationally. You have someone’s prints in a car that was carjacked. No one can ID any member of the group that was involved in the carjacking. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is whether the persons whose prints were in the car left them after the car was already carjacked and abandoned. The kids leave these cars abandoned after they are carjacked and people “jump in” all the time. Or the person whose prints were in it says omg, my buddy Joey picked me up in the car and we went to McDonalds and I didn’t know it was stolen, he had the keys. I get that it is more likely than not that the person whose prints are in the car was involved in the carjacking, but that is not the standard of proof.

Isn't "jumping in" to a car that doesn't belong to you also a crime? I don't jump into random cars. Do you?

It’s misdemeanor unlawful entry of a motor vehicle at worst, not carjacking. I’m trying to explain to those that are not familiar with the criminal justice system why fingerprints in a carjacked vehicle doesn’t translate to carjacking charges.

yeah I’m sure it’s uniquely difficult to prove carjacking in DC lol. anyway, with all the security cameras available it’s not hard to correlate a fingerprint with the images.

Of course if there is clear enough camera footage of the perps and their faces are visible or their clothing is unique, that is a different scenario. But if you scroll back up to the beginning of this thread the point I have been addressing is the idea that fingerprints alone is enough to charge and prove carjacking. It is not.

charge them and let them provide an alibi.

You can’t arrest someone unless you have probable cause. Fingerprints in a carjacked vehicle with nothing else is not probable cause to arrest someone for carjacking. You take the prints and do more detective work to try and build a case that meets the probable cause threshold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is all the blame here toward the mom warranted? This is what I read:


2D- Kidnapping / Stolen Auto

The Second District is investigating a Kidnapping and Stolen Auto that occurred on Friday, January 5, 2024, at approximately 1803 hours in the Unit block of 3000 M Street NW.

The complainant was traveling with her four-month-old daughter when a tire deflated on her rental vehicle, a white Jeep. She pulled over in the 3000 block of M St NW and exited the vehicle to ask for help. While outside the Jeep, which she left running, an unknown suspect entered the vehicle and drove away with her four-month-old daughter westbound on M St NW.

At approximately 1853 hours, MPD officers received a call that an unknown individual left the child, still in her car seat, in the 1500 block of 28th St SE with a note stating that the baby had been lost from Georgetown. After knocking on the door, the suspect fled. No lookout is available. The homeowners then took the child to the Sixth District Police substation. There is no available lookout for the complainant's vehicle at this time except that it was a white jeep of an unknown make and model.

If you have any information about this incident, please contact the Command Information Center at 202-727-9099 or send an anonymous text tip 50411

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is wild. Sounds like they knocked on the door and left the baby on the porch.

Glad it ended well. Wonder if the car will be torched on the PG border.

This is a really heartwarming turn of events. They did the right thing.

It's a rollercoaster of a story. They did do the right thing. Still feel horrified by the mom. some witnesses commented that she took her time smelling all the candles at La Labo, ran out clutching one when she saw her car was gone, and then came back in to talk to the Police there.

What witnesses? Do you have a link (l googled but didn’t find). Her behavior sounds too crazy to be true.

NP here. I read that in the comments of the Washingtonian problems insta page. I think it is in this particular post. https://www.instagram.com/p/C1vV3uBRXM6/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

The mother lied to the police, witnesses on social media reported that the mother was shopping and stopping to smell scents and test out items to purchase. The mother is the main source of culpability.

Agree the moms story doesn't make sense. How can a car with a flat tire be driven miles and miles (by the carjackers)? Why was she seen in La Labo by multiple witnesses if she was just checking the tire? Why did she stop there, instead of pull into a side street or something?

(The only way the moms story makes sense is if she knows she was in the wrong for leaving her baby alone in a running car, and she is desperate to reflect that blame, and that's what she came up with).

It is highly likely this is what happened. Mom panicked realizing that she was going to be in trouble for leaving her baby unattended in an idling car while she shopped and came up with a story. I’m a former prosecutor and while these perps if caught will probably be charged with kidnapping and theft, I would plead them out to theft (this wasn’t a carjacking if she was in the store shopping) and that’s it. I would be more incensed at Mom for being so reckless and endangering her baby, and would have no issue prosecuting her.

You’d be harsher on the mother than the carjackers/kidnappers/child welfare endangers? They left the 4 month old baby outside in freezing weather. You’re sick. Misogyny against mothers is truly entrenched.

I’m sorry but it’s not a badge of feminism to defend what this mother did. It was criminal. And yes, I actually don’t find someone jumping into a car that someone left running with the keys in the ignition to be that much more problematic than deciding to leave your 4 month old in the car with it running while you go into a perfume store to shop. The car thieves realized the baby was in the car, took it to a home that was well lit with people inside, and knocked on the door so they would come out and see the baby there with a note that the baby was from Georgetown.

You’re disgusting that you think it’s totally fine to steal other peoples’ property. Put aside the kidnapping. F you for thinking you can just take a persons car. You seriously need help.

No one said taking the car was totally fine. There absolutely should be consequences for taking the car and hopefully this experience strikes some fear in them given that they also ended up kidnapping a baby (yes, it turned into kidnapping once they knew the baby was in the car and kept driving with her). There also should be consequences for leaving an infant alone in a running car while you go shop in a store.

There should be worse consequences for the carjackers, who are creating a world where you can’t leave kids in the car even for a minute. Yes she was wrong, but she was wrong BECAUSE we have let carjackers and car thiefs rampage with impunity. It’s to the point where I now have to strategize about how to safely get my kid out of an uber at Union Station (where carjackings happen daily) and worry about him getting hit by a speeding 14 year old in a stolen Kia.

DC is a city and of course that means parenting differently and having street smarts. But f this attitude that we cannot do anything about carjacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby was left in the car seat on a street in SE but the car is still missing. Curious about where/with who?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Thank goodness she is safe.

I hope these guys get charged with kidnapping and child abuse, and get put away for a long time.

Sounds like these guys are on the loose joyriding in the jeep? At our councilmembers safety walk the USAO representative told us they can't charge carjackers cos when four sets of prints are found they don't know who the jacker was.. COMPLETE IMPUNITY and zero solutions offered.

Hope you told them what utter bullshit this was! 4sets of fingerprints? Arrest and charge them all, unless there is a reason for that fingerprint in the car. Are these people STUPID?

I’m a former prosecutor so I will take a crack at explaining why it is difficult to charge someone with carjacking based on fingerprints alone. When a car gets jacked by say several people who are masked and wearing generic dark clothing, the lookout for the suspects is obviously weak and the victim won’t be able to make an ID of people that did the carjacking. Then say the car is recovered the next day abandoned. The vehicle is printed and you get some hits off the prints. All you can prove is that the people whose prints were in the vehicle had been inside it at some point. You cannot prove that those people jacked the vehicle. You also can’t prove that they went joyriding in it after it was jacked because it was jacked with a key, so there wasn’t anything that would indicate to a passenger in the vehicle that the car was stolen. If, say the jackers weren’t masked and the victims got a look at the suspects, you can definitely put the people whose prints were found inside the car in photo arrays and show them to the victims and maybe they ID the jackers.

Thank you, I appreciate your comment. But, seriously?? I’m sorry, but this should be enough(the bolder). What do you mean WHO was doing the carjacking? How is this truly relevant? They obviously did it together. Working as a team. None of them had permission to be inside that car. Your (and the law’s) explanation makes it sound as if part of the theft team was then kidnapped. What nonsense is this!?

Ok, take a deep breath and think rationally. You have someone’s prints in a car that was carjacked. No one can ID any member of the group that was involved in the carjacking. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is whether the persons whose prints were in the car left them after the car was already carjacked and abandoned. The kids leave these cars abandoned after they are carjacked and people “jump in” all the time. Or the person whose prints were in it says omg, my buddy Joey picked me up in the car and we went to McDonalds and I didn’t know it was stolen, he had the keys. I get that it is more likely than not that the person whose prints are in the car was involved in the carjacking, but that is not the standard of proof.

Isn't "jumping in" to a car that doesn't belong to you also a crime? I don't jump into random cars. Do you?

It’s misdemeanor unlawful entry of a motor vehicle at worst, not carjacking. I’m trying to explain to those that are not familiar with the criminal justice system why fingerprints in a carjacked vehicle doesn’t translate to carjacking charges.

yeah I’m sure it’s uniquely difficult to prove carjacking in DC lol. anyway, with all the security cameras available it’s not hard to correlate a fingerprint with the images.

Of course if there is clear enough camera footage of the perps and their faces are visible or their clothing is unique, that is a different scenario. But if you scroll back up to the beginning of this thread the point I have been addressing is the idea that fingerprints alone is enough to charge and prove carjacking. It is not.

charge them and let them provide an alibi.

You can’t arrest someone unless you have probable cause. Fingerprints in a carjacked vehicle with nothing else is not probable cause to arrest someone for carjacking. You take the prints and do more detective work to try and build a case that meets the probable cause threshold.

Of course it’s probable cause. Try harder.

[Anonymous]

wow in a city with the highest concentration of lawyers so little know about the actual law

do i suspect a lot of lawyer wives on here

and also stealing things vs. harming a child are two different things

both are wrong but the degree to so is different

car jackers are wrong; should be found and prosecuted; charges for kidnapping should be included (even if they did the right thing an example must be made)

mom was wrong - and there is no reason to leave a 4 month old alone in a car; there is no safe space for that to happen (kids vomit; blow out; etc); if the engine was running to keep the kid warm she's not using cold air therapy or some nordic ideal of child rearing. its a main busy street - this should not have ever been a consideration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fingerprints would be just part of the evidence. It would place someone in the car. Leading to a photo array (assuming the car jacker had a previous arrest, his booking prints linked to his photo). Once police know who this is they get a warrant to search his social media and his cell phone. Because these kids all talk about everything. A codefendant could be found during this media search. They can see if the person has been arrested with anyone else ever or who his fellow gang members are. That’s on top of video surveillance of the crime.
So a fingerprint is a lot.

You watch too much tv

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks, most crimes require intent - mens rea. It isn't kidnapping to steal a car you don't realize has a sleeping baby in the backseat. It just isn't, and it never will be.

Felony murder is a thing though. The people intent on robbery or other crimes don’t intend to kill anyone, and yet…

Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Criminal law 101 and they also teach that repeatedly in bar review.

The level of a crime is where intent comes in. But you can be guilty without intent of a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby was left in the car seat on a street in SE but the car is still missing. Curious about where/with who?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Thank goodness she is safe.

I hope these guys get charged with kidnapping and child abuse, and get put away for a long time.

Sounds like these guys are on the loose joyriding in the jeep? At our councilmembers safety walk the USAO representative told us they can't charge carjackers cos when four sets of prints are found they don't know who the jacker was.. COMPLETE IMPUNITY and zero solutions offered.

Hope you told them what utter bullshit this was! 4sets of fingerprints? Arrest and charge them all, unless there is a reason for that fingerprint in the car. Are these people STUPID?

I’m a former prosecutor so I will take a crack at explaining why it is difficult to charge someone with carjacking based on fingerprints alone. When a car gets jacked by say several people who are masked and wearing generic dark clothing, the lookout for the suspects is obviously weak and the victim won’t be able to make an ID of people that did the carjacking. Then say the car is recovered the next day abandoned. The vehicle is printed and you get some hits off the prints. All you can prove is that the people whose prints were in the vehicle had been inside it at some point. You cannot prove that those people jacked the vehicle. You also can’t prove that they went joyriding in it after it was jacked because it was jacked with a key, so there wasn’t anything that would indicate to a passenger in the vehicle that the car was stolen. If, say the jackers weren’t masked and the victims got a look at the suspects, you can definitely put the people whose prints were found inside the car in photo arrays and show them to the victims and maybe they ID the jackers.

Thank you, I appreciate your comment. But, seriously?? I’m sorry, but this should be enough(the bolder). What do you mean WHO was doing the carjacking? How is this truly relevant? They obviously did it together. Working as a team. None of them had permission to be inside that car. Your (and the law’s) explanation makes it sound as if part of the theft team was then kidnapped. What nonsense is this!?

Ok, take a deep breath and think rationally. You have someone’s prints in a car that was carjacked. No one can ID any member of the group that was involved in the carjacking. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is whether the persons whose prints were in the car left them after the car was already carjacked and abandoned. The kids leave these cars abandoned after they are carjacked and people “jump in” all the time. Or the person whose prints were in it says omg, my buddy Joey picked me up in the car and we went to McDonalds and I didn’t know it was stolen, he had the keys. I get that it is more likely than not that the person whose prints are in the car was involved in the carjacking, but that is not the standard of proof.

Isn't "jumping in" to a car that doesn't belong to you also a crime? I don't jump into random cars. Do you?

It’s misdemeanor unlawful entry of a motor vehicle at worst, not carjacking. I’m trying to explain to those that are not familiar with the criminal justice system why fingerprints in a carjacked vehicle doesn’t translate to carjacking charges.

yeah I’m sure it’s uniquely difficult to prove carjacking in DC lol. anyway, with all the security cameras available it’s not hard to correlate a fingerprint with the images.

Of course if there is clear enough camera footage of the perps and their faces are visible or their clothing is unique, that is a different scenario. But if you scroll back up to the beginning of this thread the point I have been addressing is the idea that fingerprints alone is enough to charge and prove carjacking. It is not.

charge them and let them provide an alibi.

You can’t arrest someone unless you have probable cause. Fingerprints in a carjacked vehicle with nothing else is not probable cause to arrest someone for carjacking. You take the prints and do more detective work to try and build a case that meets the probable cause threshold.

Of course it’s probable cause. Try harder.

It is absolutely not. I was a prosecutor for over a decade. No judge, even the former prosecutor ones, is signing a warrant for carjacking with nothing more than prints found in an abandoned carjacked vehicle. The only scenario I can come up with where there is PC based on just prints is where there is a pursuit of a freshly carjacked vehicle, the occupants bail out and aren’t caught, but police recover the vehicle immediately. In that specific scenario, yes I would approve that warrant. Unfortunately, these vehicles are often recovered a significant amount of time after the carjacking, which lessens the weight of any prints recovered inside absent the additional investigative steps mentioned earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby was left in the car seat on a street in SE but the car is still missing. Curious about where/with who?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Thank goodness she is safe.

I hope these guys get charged with kidnapping and child abuse, and get put away for a long time.

Sounds like these guys are on the loose joyriding in the jeep? At our councilmembers safety walk the USAO representative told us they can't charge carjackers cos when four sets of prints are found they don't know who the jacker was.. COMPLETE IMPUNITY and zero solutions offered.

Hope you told them what utter bullshit this was! 4sets of fingerprints? Arrest and charge them all, unless there is a reason for that fingerprint in the car. Are these people STUPID?

I’m a former prosecutor so I will take a crack at explaining why it is difficult to charge someone with carjacking based on fingerprints alone. When a car gets jacked by say several people who are masked and wearing generic dark clothing, the lookout for the suspects is obviously weak and the victim won’t be able to make an ID of people that did the carjacking. Then say the car is recovered the next day abandoned. The vehicle is printed and you get some hits off the prints. All you can prove is that the people whose prints were in the vehicle had been inside it at some point. You cannot prove that those people jacked the vehicle. You also can’t prove that they went joyriding in it after it was jacked because it was jacked with a key, so there wasn’t anything that would indicate to a passenger in the vehicle that the car was stolen. If, say the jackers weren’t masked and the victims got a look at the suspects, you can definitely put the people whose prints were found inside the car in photo arrays and show them to the victims and maybe they ID the jackers.

Thank you, I appreciate your comment. But, seriously?? I’m sorry, but this should be enough(the bolder). What do you mean WHO was doing the carjacking? How is this truly relevant? They obviously did it together. Working as a team. None of them had permission to be inside that car. Your (and the law’s) explanation makes it sound as if part of the theft team was then kidnapped. What nonsense is this!?

Ok, take a deep breath and think rationally. You have someone’s prints in a car that was carjacked. No one can ID any member of the group that was involved in the carjacking. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is whether the persons whose prints were in the car left them after the car was already carjacked and abandoned. The kids leave these cars abandoned after they are carjacked and people “jump in” all the time. Or the person whose prints were in it says omg, my buddy Joey picked me up in the car and we went to McDonalds and I didn’t know it was stolen, he had the keys. I get that it is more likely than not that the person whose prints are in the car was involved in the carjacking, but that is not the standard of proof.

Isn't "jumping in" to a car that doesn't belong to you also a crime? I don't jump into random cars. Do you?

It’s misdemeanor unlawful entry of a motor vehicle at worst, not carjacking. I’m trying to explain to those that are not familiar with the criminal justice system why fingerprints in a carjacked vehicle doesn’t translate to carjacking charges.

yeah I’m sure it’s uniquely difficult to prove carjacking in DC lol. anyway, with all the security cameras available it’s not hard to correlate a fingerprint with the images.

Of course if there is clear enough camera footage of the perps and their faces are visible or their clothing is unique, that is a different scenario. But if you scroll back up to the beginning of this thread the point I have been addressing is the idea that fingerprints alone is enough to charge and prove carjacking. It is not.

charge them and let them provide an alibi.

You can’t arrest someone unless you have probable cause. Fingerprints in a carjacked vehicle with nothing else is not probable cause to arrest someone for carjacking. You take the prints and do more detective work to try and build a case that meets the probable cause threshold.

Of course it’s probable cause. Try harder.

Yes, it’s probable cause to arrest every mechanic, valet, friend, and neighbor who might ever have touched your car.

Try harder.