The article mentions two women who had each reported their cars stolen after the "courtesy" tow which makes one wonder -- _is_ this theft? If not, why? Does it matter if it's done by a private towing company?
But what the plaintiffs are arguing is that it's failing due process at the constitutional level, which to perhaps oversimplify means the city isn't being responsible/fair with its law.
Nobody disputes it has the right to move vehicles for legitimate reasons (which these seem to be), but obviously it ought to be able to track where it moved them to and ensure it's not leading to fines and/or damage without recompense -- which it is clearly not doing. Their lawyers know the city isn't following due process, which is why the city is offering these payouts.
A crime where someone does something to somebody's property without intending to actually take the property, or not to take it permanently.
Not being familiar with this jurisdiction I can't say whether that's the actual law though. Depending on how it's defined it could easily be theft.
No, the asset is being moved, not retained by the mover, and it's ostensibly being done for the public good (edit: see the link further down the thread for why this matters). If _eminent domain_ isn't theft, this definitely isn't.
> Does it matter if it's done by a private towing company?
Not if they're deputized.
I don't get this argument. If I take something which doesn't belong to me, say from a store, and move it two blocks away and put it down, I would still be stealing right? Is the perpetrator required to 'retain' something for it to be theft? If I'm caught while stealing and drop the item, "I just moved it without the owners consent" probably isn't going to cover me.
> If _eminent domain_ isn't theft, this definitely isn't.
Clearly I'm not especially acquainted with the law, but when the government exercises eminent domain doesn't it have to go through some legal process? And my understanding is that owners must be compensated for the property that is taken under eminent domain.
No, not if you don’t intend to deprive the rightful owner of it (although good luck convincing anyone that you lacked such intent).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft
> Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property
> although good luck convincing anyone that you lacked such intent
So it sounds like in the courtesy towing context, the city claims that it doesn't have any intent to deprive people of the use of their property, but it's behaving in a way which a reasonable person would totally anticipate would lead to people being unable to use their property (by dropping vehicles in locations which are never communicated to the owner).
The actually interesting legal question revolves around who (if anybody) is liable in this situation.
I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that doesn't have a law that covers unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, so I can practically guarantee it is illegal.
In Philadelphia I believe the relevant statue is https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.02... - although I'm actually unsure if towing would count as "operating" here? That's a question for their lawyer.