I don't think that the quotation marks are appropriate here.

"Master Cylinder" (mastercylinder28)
11/04/2015 at 12:53 • Filed to: None

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

Yeah, I’m pretty sure that it’s not “stealing,” it’s just regular old stealing . Taking another person’s property away from them without their permission is one of those things that society really frowns upon. Whoever came up with this idea really knocked it out of the park.

An unlocked car is not an invitation for others to help themselves to what’s inside. It is rather foolish to leave one’s car unlocked, yes, but that doesn’t change the ownership of the vehicle or its contents.

Now, I’m not a criminal lawyer, I don’t practice law in Connecticut, and I’m not familiar with this “caretaker” law to which the article refers. But in general, when someone takes your stuff without permission, it’s what we call “conversion” on the civil side of the law. Conversion is, essentially, taking someone’s stuff and converting it to your own use by exercising “control and dominion” over the property. Here in Michigan, if someone converts your property, you’re entitled to triple damages. So something like this can get pretty expensive quick for a police department stupid enough to pull a stunt like this.

Not to mention potential criminal issues of theft and entering someone’s vehicle without permission.

As a driver - hell, just as a citizen - this would make me so incredibly angry if it happened to me. It’s ridiculously invasive, an abuse of authority, almost certainly illegal (except maybe with Connecticut’s “caretaker law,” whatever that is), and it’s just plain stupid.

DISCUSSION (28)

macanamera > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 12:56

Who are you to “tell” me where they “are” needed or not?

davedave1111 > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 12:57

Theft is generally defined as taking a thing with the intention to keep it.

TheHondaBro > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 12:58

Right, and I shot that guy just to prove to him how bulletproof he isn't.

Too many M's > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 13:02

The German Polizei do this. They'll open your car, take some things and leave a note where you can pick up your belongings. In some cases they'll give you a fine for their troubles.

Scott > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 13:06

The Police in Troy, NY started locking cars that they found unlocked. People complained about this practice after a number of people got locked out of their car. Last I heard on that was the practice was being reviewed. A number of people questioned was it unlawful search or unlawful entry, since the police had to open the car doors without the owners knowledge or being present so they could lock the doors. In doing so the Police were advised to make certain that keys had not been left in the car, so of course to verify that they have to take a look around inside the car.

Of course the Police chief justified it, and said nothing illegal was being done, that his police officers are all perfect angels that are only trying to help people avoid having their car or their possessions stolen.

The police stealing things seems like a perfectly logical next step. And hey they are the police, it’s impossible for them to break the law, or at least that’s what their lapdogs all say.

Dunnik > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 13:07

Kinja'd!!!

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 13:08

One of the owners of these “stolen” cars should “file charges” against the police.

Master Cylinder > Scott
11/04/2015 at 13:16

Pretty much. At best, it’s well-intentioned but misguided. At worst, it’s an abuse of the public trust, a flimsy pretext to search vehicles they’d otherwise have no authority to search, and just plain criminal.

I would never lock some stranger’s car for them, let alone take their property for safekeeping.” Leaving your car unlocked isn’t a crime, so why are police poking around in cars?

jariten1781 > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 13:16

This isn’t conversion...there’re no damages. Conversion would be if someone took it then did something like sell it then offer you the cash back when confronted...at which point you’d be in line for the treble damages. They’re giving the property back as-is...there’s no conversion.

It’s also likely not theft (or larceny or burglary etc.) That usually requires the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property...but the laws are all written differently there so you’d have to check the local ones.

That said, it is an unreasonable seizure so I doubt it’ll be around for long.

Master Cylinder > jariten1781
11/04/2015 at 13:24

Conversion doesn’t require permanent loss of or damage to the property. It has to be more than a brief possession, sure, but taking the property off to another location and holding it there would most likely qualify. Now, sure, your damages aren’t necessarily going to be huge if nothing is missing or broken, but interference with property rights is generally something that’s going to be taken fairly seriously in American courts.

I can’t really speak to the criminal law side, but I do agree that the odds of a charge, let alone a conviction, are probably quite low.

vondon302 > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 13:26

Wow still trying to process this. It’s not like cops have an image problem now and something like this comes up. Hope it gets on national news.

LongbowMkII > jariten1781
11/04/2015 at 13:40

so it’s just borrowing without asking? There’s a word for that, it’s called stealing.

newsmctado > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 13:41

While I think you’re correct that this would be a common law conversion, I am not as sure about the treble damages under the conversion statute.

MCL 600.2919a (statutory conversion) provides that a person damaged as a result of a civil conversion “ may recover 3 times the amount of actual damages sustained, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees[.]” Treble damages are awarded at the discretion of the Court. My experience, at least on the west side of the state, is that judges will only award treble damages if there is some egregious conduct. This might reach that level; it might not.

Further, I would be curious to see if this conduct would meet the requirement under MCL 600.2919a(1)(a) requiring that the conversion be for the “person’s own use.” This was recently addressed in a MI Sup Ct case, and my firm has a nice blog post about that ruling: http://www.rhoadesmckee.com/news_and_publi…

Finally, conversion, including statutory conversion, is a tort. In Michigan, the Police would be entitled to governmental immunity under MCL 691.1407, unless they were grossly negligent, acting outside the scope of their authority, or were not engaged in the exercise or discharge of a government function (unless there is another exception to the GTL Act that I am not considering).

Where do you practice? I am in Grand Rapids.

LongbowMkII > davedave1111
11/04/2015 at 13:42

So next time someone is caught stealing they should just say that they were going to give it back and it’s all gravy? no. that’s not how this works, that’s not how any of this works.

jariten1781 > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 13:44

Huh? my experience is that no damages were assigned if the property was returned -> conversion case dismissed. Haven’t played legal boy for a while, but that’s how I saw it play out many times back when I did. If the owner refused to accept it back for whatever reason (or couldn’t because it was sold/traded/modified) then you’d get your conversion case.

LongbowMkII > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 13:45

I’m certain to believe that they would turn a blind eye to any otherwise illegal contents of a car that they just illegally searched. Certainly, because the police strongly support the 4th amendment.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 13:50

I think I would use the UK term “twocking”. So close to identical to stealing the distinction is mostly academic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWOC

newsmctado > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 13:52

I agree. Conversion is any distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over another’s personal property. It occurs at the point that such wrongful dominion is asserted.

newsmctado > jariten1781
11/04/2015 at 13:54

I believe that’s how the law used to be in Michigan; it was tied to the requirement that a rightful owner had to make a demand for return of the property. However, I believe that has since been overruled by case law and there is no longer a need to demand the return of the property. I agree that you don’t get conversion without damages, but you can be damaged by temporary dispossession of property.

Why am I responding to these questions instead of billing time in the office?

newsmctado > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 13:57

Also, where is Steve Lehto in this discussion? I would have expected him to chime in at some point.

jariten1781 > LongbowMkII
11/04/2015 at 14:02

Legally, that’s not usually true. It is, in some cases, where there have been particular statutes written (eg. Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle..aka joyriding) but for small stuff like grabbing a neighbors snow shovel and using it or using your roommate’s hair brush or whatever then returning it when asked in the same condition there’s not usually a criminal or civil remedy.

Societally: Yes, stealing;

Legally: No.

newmctado says there’s new caselaw for some of this though, and I’m about 15 years out of date...so maybe it’s changed? Dun know.

davedave1111 > LongbowMkII
11/04/2015 at 14:06

No, because no-one will believe their story unless there’s some reason to.

But this is indeed how it works in a legal sense.

Master Cylinder > newsmctado
11/04/2015 at 14:07

I’m in the Detroit area. I’m in federal procurement and contracting so my knowledge of torts is a bit rusty. Didn’t consider the governmental immunity aspect, or the “personal use” bit either, those might be showstoppers on a conversion claim.

NJAnon > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 14:28

Well the article says there is stuff in place allowing them to do this. So unless some other rule or whatever in Connecticut overrides it, then I don’t think anyone can do anything. Folks in Connecticut; is your state that safe where you don’t give even a 3rd thought to lock your car door? 8D

I’m no lawyer either (and I suggest calling Help me Howard from WSVN or something)

450X_FTW > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 14:45

It’s not stealing, it’s just civil asset forfeiture thats all

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 21:54

Great! Next thing you know they will start putting convertible tops and windows up. Then they will start removing things like wheels (should have bought wheel locks!) and stereos. Maybe if they really want to be helpful they can take out our trash to prevent us from littering. Won’t be long after that they will just start taking the whole car (if you don’t want it stolen don’t own one!).

What happens when they take someone’s bag that has medical supplies, such as an epi-pen or inhaler, then the owner can’t get to the police station in time and ends up hospitalized or dead because of it?

Master Cylinder > AMGtech - now with more recalls!
11/04/2015 at 22:58

The technical term is “a big fuckin’ lawsuit.”

Things like this are exactly the reason (well, one of them) why this is such a dumb idea. Just leave people’s stuff alone. If it gets stolen because the car’s not locked, then the police can come and do their normal “write a report so you can file an insurance claim and then never even attempt to find the people responsible” routine.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Master Cylinder
11/04/2015 at 23:14

Exactly. If someone wants to leave their car unlocked, it’s their choice. If someone wants to smoke, it’s their choice. If someone wants to walk through Compton in the middle of the night, it’s their choice. There are many reasons for any choice that appears poor from an outside perspective, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a poor choice. Or, to put it much less eloquently, you can’t fix stupid.