This is weird. In my country, if a thief sells the stolen goods, the original owner will get them back without having to pay and the person who bought them off the thief is the one who ends up paying the bill (if the thief cannot be found). This is the appropriate way to handle things because it disincentivizes buying stolen goods.
EDIT: People point out to me that this was also the case here but she wanted her computer back fast. I still don't understand why the pawn shop was allowed to keep the laptop after the discovery that it's stolen good, and how it was allowed to sell something it does not own. But I don't have the legal expertise to judge this situation, it's just confusing to me.
If the police seized it, it would be considered evidence and I wouldn’t get it back until after the trial, which could take months to resolve.
She wanted her stuff back sooner rather than later. What's unclear to me is the bit about the trial -- was the thief caught and brought to trial? Or is she talking about a proceeding based around seizing the property?
Sounds to me like she might have been coached by the detective into resolving this outside of the law, and I'm not sure who that benefits.
In response to your edit I think what happened is that the police officer was notified of the stolen item by the pawn shop and before filing an official report they contacted the owner of the item and offered them the choice. If she opts to pay the ransom the police officer has less paperwork, the justice system has one less case bogging it down, the pawn shop gets off the hook entirely, and she gets her laptop back quicker. Also the police officer maintains a great relationship with the pawn shop which might be beneficial in other cases. It's a win win win all the way around for everyone directly involved in the case. Unfortunately it's probably a net negative for everyone else as it makes the pawn shop less diligent in the future and makes it easier for robbers to offload their stolen merchandise making it more lucrative for them to continue their "profession".
Yeah, pawn shops are usually very wary about buying / taking stolen goods - after all, they'd be guilty of fencing if they bought / sold the stuff. I'm pretty sure people have to leave a copy of their ID too (or if not, they should). Although that can be faked, of course.
Anyway, if I was a thief I'd steal something, make sure to wipe the thing as soon as possible and power it down (due to Apple's remote location service), then leave it for a month, maybe two, before selling it on a random online auction / secondhand product website, preferably with a new / fake account and through seven proxies.
And even then I'd be hesitant. Apparently the thief only got $225 for the macbook - probably some more from the jewelry and other stuff. Is $500 worth spending years in jail or whatever for?
The large "pawn" shops that most normal people frequent are probably quite strict about the seller letting them copy their ID, and they make sure the deal does not look sketchy. But I am sure that for every large second hand shop there are dozens of smaller ones hidden out of sight which will buy anything for cash, no questions asked.
This has not been my experience at all (source: I was burglarized in Salt Lake City, Utah). While looking for my stolen goods at pawn shops, a homeless woman came in with a large backpack. The person working the desk clearly knew her. He asked her? "Who's bag is that marge?", to which she replied "It's yours now".
A pawn shops in Salt Lake City are filled with power tools from construction sites and car radios. Their entire business is heavily subsidized by crime.
My advice to readers is to write down the serial numbers of all your expensive goods. Pawn shops in Utah do have to check serial numbers against an online database of stolen goods.
He could have done just that, but the police would have held on to it until they'd finished their investigation and the court case was over. I suppose it's a question of waiting or paying for speedy delivery.
She doesn't have to pay to get the laptop back. She only has to pay if she wants the laptop back immediately, otherwise she'll have to wait for the police to use the laptop as evidence at trial (or hope the theif takes a plea deal and avoids trial).
this doesn't make sense to me. Police know it's stolen so why didn't they seize it to protect the evidence like they do with other crimes? In a murder, they tape off the scene and have strict protocols for entering. I have to imagine for things like laptops, cell phones, tablets, etc... they would be treated the same way to protect the evidence. Some laptops have software that will take silent pictures if you remotely activate that it was stolen.
I wish the author would have tried negotiating with the pawn shop. The pawn shop would have been out the entire 225 had she not bought the laptop back. Realizing this she could have offered a lot less and it would have still been in their best interest to sell it to her. She just needed to bluff a bit that she would be willing to let the police confiscate it if the cost was going to be over X. I bet she could have gotten it back for $50.
Also as others mentioned it's a pretty broken system that she would need to do this at all - that her laptop would be locked up in evidence for so long. But lemonade from lemons, ect...
EDIT: Also do we even have any proof that the pawn shop actually paid 225 for the laptop? It's in their best interest (financially, not morally) to lie and state a higher price. Ie. They may have profited off of selling the laptop back to her.
yea, I didn't understand how the pawn shop can hold her laptop for $225. Isn't the pawn shop in trouble for receiving stolen merchandise? If not in trouble, obligated to release it for free knowing it was stolen, etc...
I get she could have waited and then got it back at no cost, but why pay a fee to get it sooner if the dam thing is sitting in a drawer not being investigated.
Are you trying to tell me the police are waiting on her decision to investigate or not? Seems the laptop should be evidence regardless.
I think they would only be in trouble if they knowingly received stolen merchandise. It doesn't sound as if that was the case. They are obligated to release it to free to the police, as evidence. It does indeed sound like the police were waiting on her decision to investigate or not. They probably understand that it's a massive headache to be without your laptop for months, and also that there's a very low probability of catching the criminal, and thus gave the victim a reasonable alternative to having to wait so long.
I have a question... And the more I consider this question the less "clear cut" the answer is.
If the OP walked into the pawnbroker, asked for the laptop, and then literally grabbed it and left ("stole it") would they get away with it? Now, knee jerk answer is: "no that is shoplifting" but then when you consider they'd be shoplifting their own property that the pawn broken had illegally to begin with...
Legally (or even morally) it isn't at all clear cut. In fact I don't know how the law would fall in this scenario. The pawn broken almost certainly couldn't sue the OP, it would be hard to prosecute it, and possession is 9/10ths of the law.
In fact this sounds like a super interesting question to give to a law class to debate. I'm sure you can take the question and get five different (all correct) answers.
It's not that interesting. You look up the requirement for the relevant law.
Larceny is:
Taking something that doesn't belong to you, without consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner. Taking your own property means the "crime" doesn't meet those criteria.
It is a terrible idea to actually do this. You leave yourself open to being shot or arrested and then spending cash to go through the courts.
Each link in the chain of Arrest -> Charge -> Conviction, requires a different level of confidence that a crime has been committed by the accused.
Walking out of a shop with goods that are on sale in that shop, with the shopkeeper shouting that you haven't paid, looks sufficiently like a crime for an arrest, just not for a charge or conviction.
Until the police officer talks to (A) the shop owner, (B) the suspect, or (C) their named colleague who would know factually that no crime was committed.
For what you say to make sense, the arrest has to be made in complete isolation without talking to any single party involved. Seems like a stretch.
In the UK: threatening behaviour, and if any physical contact with counter staff of any kind, a push, a shove or (not sure about this) even twisting the laptop out of their hand, assault.
Not a good idea. Just either pay or go through the case and get it released after evidence use. Depends on value to you of laptop back now I suppose.
> In the UK: threatening behaviour, and if any physical contact with counter staff of any kind, a push, a shove or (not sure about this) even twisting the laptop out of their hand, assault.
> Not a good idea.
Nobody, except you, has suggesting doing any of that. So that's a rather big leap.
It requires threats of violence which nobody has suggesting using.
I find it very interesting how people cannot stay on topic. The topic is: if you walk out with it, is it legal.
But yet all people want to bring up is things outside the scope, like threats, violence, breaking things, and so fourth.
Where did these things come from? All I see people keep saying is "that isn't legal" but when did anyone in this entire discussion suggesting using such things?
Honestly it just seems trolling to bring it up at all. Why not point out that murdering the shopkeeper and emptying the cash register isn't legal either, if we're just tacking on random escalations that weren't suggested? Makes about as much sense.
I think my comment was on topic but perhaps not expressed clearly enough.
If someone did take their stolen laptop back then theft may not have been committed, but in the UK at least, a reasonably creative police officer would be able to find other grounds for an arrest, believe me. Any attempt to evade arrest would itself be a crime of course.
I accept that the situation in the USA may well be different.
"An assault takes place when the Defendant causes the victim to apprehend the use of immediate, unlawful physical violence upon them. In a common assault charge, no physical violence needs to follow the threat; just the fear experienced by the victim is inclusive of this charge. If physical violence does occur immediately after an assault, the Defendant will also be charged with a battery offence.
The Mens Rea (guilty mind) of a common assault is that the Defendant either intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to fear some degree of contact or violence. In the case R v. Ireland it was determined that a common assault can occur without verbal warning or action. Several silent phone calls made to the victim, which caused them to fear violence in the immediate future, constituted an assault offence."
What I'm trying to communicate here is the idea that even if someone where to take back their own laptop from a shop that was trying to sell it, there may be charges that could be brought if the shop wanted to push the situation and the police attending decided to act. The counter staff simply need to describe the owner's behaviour as threatening.
I do accept the point that a theft may not have been committed.
Dont know about grabbing, electric lock on the door and all. I would definitely haggle tho, $100 or I tell police to confiscate it and you get nothing (unless they have some kind of 'I buy stolen property' insurance).
Exactly what law are they breaking? Taking their own property with them?
I didn't suggest they assaulted the clerk, threaten, or smash their way out. Those are illegal. I just said leave.
As I said before, the more you think about this question the less black/white or obvious it is. Your answer is a knee jerk one, but needs a doctoral dissertation level of clarity.
I don't know about your country, but where I'm from the theft Act 1968 seems to cover it pretty clearly, and I am most definitely Not A Lawyer:
The basic definition of theft is given at the start
1:1 'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.'
You might immediately say that this discounts the possibility of the original owner committing theft, but 5(1) partly defines 'belonging to another' as:
'Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).'
So, the computer appears to 'belong to' the pawnbroker, as they have possession and control of it. But let's look back to 'appropriation'.
3(1) 'Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.'
So, regardless of who 'really' owns it, taking it from the pawnbroker (to whom it 'belongs' under the act) is 'appropriating property belonging to another' However, now we look at the definition of 'dishonest':
3(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person;...'
So, if the owner believes that they have a right to take it, then they can't be guilty of Theft. However, if the owner takes it without that belief, then they may be. I don't imagine that it would be hard to convince a jury or magistrate that that belief existed.
Perhaps other offences under the act are appropriate:
22(1) 'A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.'
This would imply that if you take stuff believing it to be stolen (which the owner would have a hard time denying, as those are the grounds on which the repossession attempt is being made), then you are guilty of "Handling Stolen Goods"
However, looking further into the act, we see:
2(3) 'But no goods shall be regarded as having continued to be stolen goods after they have been restored to the person from whom they were stolen or to other lawful possession or custody, or after that person and any other person claiming through him have otherwise ceased as regards those goods to have any right to restitution in respect of the theft.'
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24
Therefore, it must be impossible for the owner of an item to handle stolen goods.
Section 11 governs the offence: 'Removal of articles from places open to the public.'
11(1) '... references in this section to a collection do not apply to a collection made or exhibited for the purpose of effecting sales or other commercial dealings.'
11(3) 'A person does not commit an offence under this section if he believes that he has lawful authority for the removal of the thing in question or that he would have it if the person entitled to give it knew of the removal and the circumstances of it.'
The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gives provision for 'Low value shoplifting', this item is less than £200 so would be treated as such. However, this is just about whether it should be dealt with by magistrate or crown court, and requires an offence under 1(1) of the Theft Act.
> The basic definition of theft is given at the start 1:1 'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.'
> You might immediately say that this discounts the possibility of the original owner committing theft, but 5(1) partly defines 'belonging to another' as:
'Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).'
Nothing dishonest about it. Plus using the logic of your argument the shop owner is also violating that 1968 law. So arrest them both? Or was the shop owner not "dishonest" enough but the person who originally purchased the property and wanted it returned "dishonest?"
Seems like you're using a double standard here.
> So, the computer appears to 'belong to' the pawnbroker, as 1they have possession and control of it. But let's look back to 'appropriation'.
All the appropriation clause indicates is that if someone purchases property in good faith they effectively aren't a thief under the law. But all that means is in our scenario neither the shop keeper OR the original owner are thieves.
In the UK, and I know this for a fact, if property is recovered it is returned. You aren't charged for it. I know this because someone recovered stolen goods from a CeX store (which is kind of like a Cash Converters).
Simply bringing up the appropriations clause doesn't prove (or disprove) that the original owner would be considered a thief since you're misusing the law anyway.
> The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gives provision for 'Low value shoplifting', this item is less than £200 so would be treated as such. However, this is just about whether it should be dealt with by magistrate or crown court, and requires an offence under 1(1) of the Theft Act.
Doesn't apply. You cannot shoplift your own goods. Just like the hat or coat you had on when you entered the store isn't "shoplifted" when you left the store wearing it.
>Nothing dishonest about it. Plus using the logic of your argument the shop owner is also violating that 1968 law. So arrest them both? Or was the shop owner not "dishonest" enough but the person who originally purchased the property and wanted it returned "dishonest?"
You evidently missed the bit where I explored the definition of dishonest.
For clarity, I'll expand here. If I go into a shop, and pose as a customer, but then run out with it in my hand without paying, then, by a colloquial definition of dishonesty, I will have "dishonestly appropriated" it. However the Act specifically defines "dishonestly" in section 2 (the relevant line is 2(1) which I erroneously wrote as 3(1). See my comment above - "So, if the owner believes that they have a right to take it, then they can't be guilty of Theft.")
> Seems like you're using a double standard here.
In what way? For a start, I've made no assertions about the criminality or innocence of the pawnbroker. The pawnbroker may be guilty of Handling Stolen Goods, but is more likely to fall under the good faith statement in 3(2). All I've stated is that the original owner is not guilty of an offence (unless by some odd mental quirk, they took it without believing that they had a right to do so).
> All the appropriation clause indicates is that if someone purchases property in good faith they effectively aren't a thief under the law
The first clause in the section describes what is appropriation (i.e. assuming the rights of owner). The second clause is the good-faith exception you describe.
> Simply bringing up the appropriations clause doesn't prove (or disprove) that the original owner would be considered a thief since you're misusing the law anyway.
Yes, that's why, after bringing up the appropriations section, I brought up the dishonestly section, to show that the only situation in which the original owner could be a thief is if they took it without believing they had a right to do so, which would be very odd behaviour. It's also why I went on to explore the other two offences, of which the original owner could not be guilty either.
>Doesn't apply. You cannot shoplift your own goods. Just like the hat or coat you had on when you entered the store isn't "shoplifted" when you left the store wearing it.
Yes, that's what I said. '... and requires an offence under 1(1) of the Theft Act.' In order to be considered shoplifting, it must be a theft. Since it isn't a theft, then it isn't shoplifting. I brought it up to point out that even though there's another act that might cover this, but doesn't, because it refers to the Theft Act for a definition, which we have already shown, does not apply.
Ah, missed that part. But it is a general concern for businesses, and the pawn shop not mitigating that avenue probably had more to do with the overall situation and not wanting to come off as complete hard asses (making it more likely they'd let the police recover the item out of spite). Plus someone who has already involved the police is less likely to assert themselves and further complicate the situation.
I think what a lot of people are missing is that the items were (most likely) recovered because the pawn shop was doing its due diligence. This article (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-07-13/news/fl-pawn-sto...) mentions that when an item is bought, the pawn show puts information about that item in a database that law enforcement has access to.
The author also didn't HAVE to pay to get her laptop back. She mentions that she could have had the police seize it as evidence, but then she would have to wait for the resolution of the case to get it back. She paid for the privilege of getting her laptop back sooner.
A lot of the folks here who are criticizing the writer for “paying the ransom” (of sorts) rather than let the cops take it for evidence: slow your roll and put yourself in her shoes.
It’s not that she wanted it “fast”, it’s that the alternative was waiting •months• for the gears of justice to turn. Furthermore, this is a person whose income was such that she had to turn to friends to scrape together a lousy $250 to get it back — the snow could be thawing by the time this person could buy a new laptop OR the original was returned by the police.
Justice is for people who can afford it (or, hate the game, not the player)
So, as the rightful owner of the laptop, with proof (serial numbers, receipts, etc), could she not just have walked in, asked to see it, and walked out with it? What are they going to do, call the police? And are the police really going to charge her with theft of her own property?
I am surprised the Police didn't take it away and give it back to her - she had all the proof the laptop was hers. It shouldn't be her problem that the pawnbroker paid anything for it, it wasn't theirs.
The cynic in me says the police officer got a share of the $225 under the table. Why else use an extrajudicial process for something that should be easily resolvable within the law?
For similar reasons I have 5 years old HP Elitebook 2540P. It has 8 GB memory, two ssds, lasts 9 hours on battery, dual CPU goes up to 2.6 GHz...
It costs $250 to replace it. I can leave it in hotel without ssd. And it can take rough handling, moist exposure etc...
I found that newer laptops do not offer anything new. You shave off one 1 pound, but loose most extendability options. I might update once some 13" laptop offers 24GB RAM.
That's why when getting insurance for your personal items you always ask to have it without any excess. It costs slightly more(on mine the difference is so small it's negligible) and it avoids stupid situations like that. She would have just gotten the money back from the insurance and it would be it.
Plus, it was the pawn shop's work in submitting serial numbers that got the items found. If the pawn shop gets prosecuted for turning in paperwork, they will turn in less paperwork.
Why doesn't it work in the other direction - where the pawn shops check the serial number in a police database of stolen items before they purchase it, and then contact the police silently if it turns out to be stolen?
So instead of paying $225 to a pawn shop you can pay $225 for the Dropcam Pro..? Dropcams are overpriced, but no camera would have stopped this, they already caught the thief, so they didn't need additional evidence.
If you think you'll see the video and rush home before the thieves leave then you misunderstand just how little time your average robbery takes. 15-20 minutes at most, most much less (10 or less minutes). Get in, grab valuables, and get out. They just presume silent alarm or neighbour spotted them, and act accordingly.
Last month I had my laptop stolen for it to be retrieved from a bin in a neighbouring council estate, screen, keyboard and case wrecked.
Because it had been retrieved (which was good in that I got my data back) it was not 'stolen', merely 'criminal damage'. Although a police matter rather than something I have to pursue with 'civil action' of my own, a lot of hoops have to be gone through before things happen.
So the original box - Dell 'high end' from 2 years ago cost £800. Trying to work out what was wrong with it and then running around town + the internet to get a repair quote has taken a good day of my time. This was quite an effort with a lot of repair shops just not able to give a quote just like that. Either they want £50 for just the quote or they don't want to bother with it as it is too much hassle - fair enough. Eventually - thank my lucky stars - I get a quote for £417 from some small repair shop, this was just the ticket I needed to be able to help the police proceed with some action.
The thief have allegedly had their 'bail hearing' and I am none the wiser as to what happened. Even if they were going to pay the £417 the quote came to I doubt that I would want it fixed given the hassle involved in that. A new replacement machine is what I would like, not something that has the scars of quite a traumatic incident. Even though prices go down it still costs ~£800 to get a similar PC (i7, HD screen, backlit keyboard, 8Gb RAM, aluminium case). A £400 'High Street' machine might be pretty good but I doubt I will get the magic 'i7' badge.
So the costs - I needed the machine for out of hours support so other arrangements had to be made for that. I spent quite a lot of time with the police at the time of the incident and following things up running around to repair shops - surprisingly draining. Plus the story is not over yet, by the time I am done it could be a week's worth of effort to get the thing back, and that is assuming that the thief just comes up with the money.
How do I value my time? If I look at lowest of the low contractor rate as a starting point and imagine how much a few days work for a client could be then my time spent running around for some notional £417 could be more profitable. Plus I would achieve something.
Oddly though, even though I am 'turn the other cheek', in this case I am keen that the thief has the criminal record and the difficulty of getting £££ together. The fact that £417 does not buy me a replacement 'i7' machine (with backlit keyboard, HD screen and 8Gb RAM) is in some ways a detail.
Although I have had the help of the police I am surprised at how things work out - thief released under caution and some assumption that I don't deserve my machine simply replaced - 'like for like' and not patched up together again. Also this burden of running around town to get quotes for a repair, isn't my time valuable?
The author seems completely annoyed at the fact that he had to pay to get his treasured top-of-the-range laptop back from the pawnbrokers (who were also out of pocket otherwise).
In my opinion the net outcome is extremely positive. He might have never got it back and then he'd be forced to buy a new one (albeit with insurance money), but he would have lost all his files assuming he has no backups. Even if he had backups, restoring his laptop back to its exact previous state isn't easy for most people.
I'd be completely stoked if my stolen laptop turned up and I just had to pay the pawnbroker for what he was out of pocket for.
Anyone who buys something from someone else, but especially a professional like a pawnbroker, has a duty to make sure the goods they're buying aren't stolen. Failing to do that is a crime in many countries ("handling stolen goods" in UK parlance). The very least the pawnbroker should pay is the cost of whatever they're out of pocket for, but really they ought to be facing criminal charges. People being willing to profit from stolen goods is what keeps people stealing. If no one was willing to buy something that had been stolen then people would stop taking things (or at most they'd steal what they need themselves).
Perpetuating criminality is in no way a good thing.
Anyone who buys something from someone else, but especially a professional like a pawnbroker, has a duty to make sure the goods they're buying aren't stolen.
Isn't that what the pawnshop did, by submitting the serial numbers to the cops?
The very least the pawnbroker should pay is the cost of whatever they're out of pocket for
And they would've, if she had followed the legal procedure, she just didn't want to wait.
The business model of a pawnbroker includes the risk of handling stolen goods. Even if you pay for stolen goods, they don't belong to you.
This is recognised in any basic assessment of the business domain of pawnbroking, e.g. wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawnbrokers
So it's not really correct to say the pawnbrokers were out of pocket - dealing with this problem is an expected part of their business.
Like other commenter, I'm quite surprised by the requirement for the author to pay in this regard - she seems to have chosen to pay rather than wait out a police seizure. Since she's a writer, I'd guess her income is quite dependent on having a computer.
it's all too common that a victim loses not only by crimes committed but also by being a victim. Having had a motorcycle stolen, the police recovered a bag which had been attached to it, and it took my time and money to get to the police station and identify it, and the bag was never returned to me after the court case was dropped.
Isnt this some form of laundering, and illegal? I mean, someone could run a very profitable business selling known illegal goods back to their owners..
.. I personally think that if you are buying something, you have to be pretty damn sure it's not stolen, especially when youre planning on reselling these things. That's why a lot of countries have laws in place to enforce exactly that kind of behaviour.
EDIT: People point out to me that this was also the case here but she wanted her computer back fast. I still don't understand why the pawn shop was allowed to keep the laptop after the discovery that it's stolen good, and how it was allowed to sell something it does not own. But I don't have the legal expertise to judge this situation, it's just confusing to me.