The Cost of Getting My Stolen Computer Back
thebillfold.com
thebillfold.com
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.
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.
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?
Then again, $500 for some is a small fortune.
These people just need things they can exchange for drugs; or things they can exchange for money for drugs.
Here's some UK Freedom of Information.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-cost-of...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Not a good idea.
Nobody, except you, has suggesting doing any of that. So that's a rather big leap.
I said leave. I didn't say attack the staff.
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.
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.
Deleted comment
Yes it does. What is your definition? Here's Wikipedia's:
> It is committed by a person who causes another person to apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence by the defendant.
Seems pretty clear cut there. Doesn't apply.
"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."
http://www.grayandcosolicitors.co.uk/section-39-common-assau...
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.
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.
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.'
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1
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).'
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/5
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.'
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/3
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.'
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/22
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.'
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/11
So it can't be that, either.
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.
Do I get my D.Jur?
> 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.
You cannot steal your own property.
> Do I get my D.Jur?
Grow up. Your post was good, that was immature.
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.
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)
* edit: typo
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.
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.
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?
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.
The author is a "glass half empty" kind of guy.
Perpetuating criminality is in no way a good thing.
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.
Yes, after they shelled out $225 to a thief.
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 doesn't really sit right with my sense of justice.
.. 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.