A reader recently sent me a news story regarding the manhunt in California for Christopher Dorner – the former police officer who went on a killing spree back in February – that resulted in a reward of $1 million being offered in connection with the attempts to apprehend the dangerous fugitive. In order to finance the reward, 30 groups have joined together to donate monies toward the $1 million pot. During the frantic manhunt, the reward was publicly announced in an effort to hasten Dorner’s apprehension. Dorner was never formally apprehended – but he was cornered and eventually committed suicide prior to his arrest.
Thereafter, there were some rumblings as to whether the reward would be honored – with some of the donors suggesting that they had offered a reward for the “arrest and conviction” of Dorner. Given that neither of those things happened, some of the donors began to question whether there was a duty to make payment – and some specifically indicated that they were withdrawing their monies from the reward kitty. The reader who sent me the information was disturbed that this could occur – and suggested that this “loophole” potentially created a conflict for law enforcement officials if they knew that their respective agencies would not have to kick any reward monies into the pot if Dorner ended up dead rather than arrested and convicted.
In law school, the law governing rewards was actually taught in contract class – simple offer and acceptance. I make an offer of a reward, and if you accept the challenge and fulfill the requirements for the reward, then you are entitled to the money. Of course, the enforceability of a contract always depends upon its terms – and the person offering the reward has a legal obligation to pay when the terms of the offer are fulfilled.
On the other hand, reward cases generally require only substantial performance by the claimant – not perfect performance. In other words, the fact that a citizen has substantially complied with his or her end of the deal by providing the information – and the failure to arrest and convict a particular wanted person is not the fault of the volunteering citizen – then reward monies are normally paid. In other words, the assisting citizen has done everything in his or her power to fulfill the conditions of the reward, and the fact that Dorner committed suicide does not alter the fact that the citizen still performed under the contractual reward arrangement.
Apparently, the groups that had threatened to withdraw financial support changed their minds – either for legal reasons or simply public relations reasons. The dispute between the reward claimants ended up in Court – and it was determined that the $1 million reward would be split between three different parties. First, $800,000 of the reward was granted to Jim and Karen Reynolds – the couple who were tied up by Dorner but still managed to find a way to call 911 to make a report. This 911 call told the police the exact area where Dorner was holed up. Then, $150,000 went to Daniel McGowan, who found Dorner’s burnt out pick-up truck and reported it to the police. This information told the police two things – that Dorner was now on foot and the general geographic area around the truck where the search could continue. Finally, $50,000 went to R. Lee McDaniel, a tow truck driver who spotted Dorner at a convenience store on February 7 and reported it. McDaniel’s report resulted in two different shoot outs between Dorner and law enforcements officials.
The Court denied the claim that was made by Rick Heltebrake – the park ranger who Dorner carjacked after he fled the Reynolds’ cabin. The Court determined that the police already knew where Dorner was located at that point – and the information provided by Helterake was unnecessary for the attempted apprehension of Dorner. The Court also denied the claims made by 8 other people after weighing the “comparative value of the information provided and how directly it casually led to Dormer’s escape.”
Rewards, like other contracts, can be tricky business – especially where there are competing claims. The Dorner case provided an interesting example on the contract principles that apply to reward claims, how they are weighed, and how they are settled. It is not as easy as most people think.
Please submit any questions, concerns, or comments to Susquehanna County District Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 218, Montrose, Pennsylvania 18801 or at our website www.SusquehannaCounty-DA.org or discuss this and all articles at http://dadesk.blogspot.com/.