Wrongly Accused of Grand Larceny by My Ex-

thank you - it's just hard for me to let it rest when I know he's going around and is legally allowed to go around to call the police and make false reports against me. i understand its his constitutional right to make allegations if he believes them to be true, but he's fabricating this story, and I'm extremely concerned now that he is going to continue calling the police to make reports or log incidents and naming me as the prime suspect. how do i use my constitutional right to stop him in his tracks? this is why i want to speak to a police officer at the station, but again, i dont know if this will do more harm than good and open a case of worms since they havent contacted me yet and probably wont.

The best thing is to consult with a local lawyer (most offer free consultations). If the police call or visit, you do not talk to them, you tell them you are calling your lawyer.

thank you for the advice, much valued and appreciated!

Quote:

---

Quoting Needlegaladvice77

---

Should I walk into the police station and ask to speak to someone about this? i'm just so concerned that he's going to call to report 'log made-up incidicents' but idk if me speaking to an officer will do more harm than good.

I am also concerned about this affecting my record which is clean. will this come up in a criminal background check?

---

No one at the police department will likely be too concerned with it. If the matter is under investigation, they might simply tell you that someone will be in touch. You might actually create a case where there currently is none. It might be best to just leave it be.

And, no, this generally will not be part of a criminal background check because you were not arrested, charged, or convicted. Now, if someone does a thorough background and can access police logs somehow (usually through a signed waiver or a public records request) they might find the call, but not the details. There's nothing you can do to get rid of the call being there.

Here’s an update plus another question:

Yup Cdwjava - you were absolutely right!!!! No one cared at the police station or were (are) they concerned or have any intentions on following up with him or me. I was able to get the "call log entry” information and description b/c the young lady at the police station changed me from "suspect" to "party involved" in order for me to read what my ex was alleging I stole, there was no other way of getting it unless my attorney files a subpoena (which this “log entry” isn’t worth the hourly rate I’d spend on my attorney’s services).

The young woman suggested I make a log entry in response to his false allegation (log entry) for my own benefit, which I did, stating that I did not steal anything from him and that I believe he's making these false allegations against me b/c he thinks this will work against me for the child support and child custody case we're going to embark on soon, as well as, including that he has made false allegations in the past before which landed him a Temporary Restraining Order back in July (I now regret dropping the TRO in court!).

On the call log entry, he alleges that I took his i-Pad a couple of weeks ago (yet doesn’t give an exact date of when this supposed theft occurred “a couple of weeks ago”) and that I took clothing from his apartment on the date he called. I have not been in his apartment since late September and I've never physically seen his i-Pad to begin with, nor have I seen him in sometime! My ex couldn’t even fully describe to the dispatcher the "crime" supposedly committed b/c he couldn't give any details, he didn’t want or request for police to come by or follow up with him, and even made claims that he didn't know me very well, but I was pregnant with his child. Simply ludicrous at this junction of my pregnancy, our past, and our past issues. I’m simply appalled! Yet grateful that this hasn’t spiked any further or that I was blindside by surprise later on in mediation at court with this false accusation.

Question: what’s the difference between “suspect” and “party involved?” Is suspect lesser than party involved or the other way around?

Quote:

---

Quoting Needlegaladvice77

---

Question: what’s the difference between “suspect” and “party involved?” Is suspect lesser than party involved or the other way around?

---

It's terminology.

It's like referring to a suspect as "a party of interest" - it only makes the word less objectionable - it has no real legal definition other than (maybe) making it less likely that Miranda might apply if the party is interviewed by the police.

Thank you for the explanation! And honestly, though it's simply terminology, "party involved" does make it sound less objectionable and unpleasant than "suspect" especially IF a potential government employer were to do an extensive background check on me (I hope at least).

Quote:

---

Quoting Needlegaladvice77

---

Thank you for the explanation! And honestly, though it's simply terminology, "party involved" does make it sound less objectionable and unpleasant than "suspect" especially IF a potential government employer were to do an extensive background check on me (I hope at least).

---

Any extensive background investigation would also seek a copy of the report or log entry so they would have a copy of what he alleged. So, the terminology might have little effect if the background is adequate. But, as there is no police investigation and certainly no court action, then it would carry little weight by itself.