Theft by finding

Last updated

Theft by finding occurs when someone chances upon an object which seems abandoned and takes possession of the object, but fails to take steps to establish whether the object is genuinely abandoned and not merely lost or unattended before taking it for themselves. [1] In some jurisdictions, the crime is called "larceny by finding" or "stealing by finding". [2] [3]

Contents

By nation

United Kingdom

In the UK, a theft occurs when there is a dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive. [4] This definition can therefore include property that is found, whether abandoned or incorrectly delivered, where the finder does not take appropriate steps to return it to the lawful owner. Commonly it is accepted in the UK that property is handed in to a Police Station for repatriation, unless the finder can locate the owner directly - such as returning a credit-card to a branch of the issuing bank, or sending a driving-licence back to the DVLA. Police forces will document the finding, retain for safe keeping and, with most found property, allow the finder to return and claim the property as theirs should the owner not come forward within a set period of time. [5] [6]

United States

In the United States, if the owner of a property has renounced all property rights in the object, then the property is abandoned. [1] Since theft is the unlawful taking of another person's property, an essential element of the actus reus of theft is absent. [2]

The finder of lost property acquires a possessory right by taking physical control of the property, but does not necessarily have ownership of the property. The finder must take reasonable steps to locate the owner. [1] If the finder shows that reasonable steps to find the owner have been taken then the finder may establish that the required mens rea for theft, the intention to deprive the owner permanently, is absent. [2]

Some have argued that finding should not be a province for the criminal law system but that any dispute as to ownership be left to resolution via a civil suit. [3] Others have argued that the jurisprudence gives rise to legal fictions and strained reasoning which has attracted divergent statutory law reform in different jurisdictions. [7] [8]

In discussing the history of finding, Alice Tay collected some cases (at footnote 36) where a finder raised an unsuccessful defence to larceny on the grounds that the circumstances of finding were such that no inquiry as to the true owner was required: [2]

and cases where the circumstances were held to show no larceny:

An issue may arise when a person takes possession of lost property with the intention of returning it to the owner after inquiry but later converts the property to the finder's use. This is illustrated by Thompson v. Nixon [1965] 3 W.L.R. 501: an off duty police constable found a bag of rabbit food lying by the roadside, took it home intending to hand it in as lost property but some time after decided to keep it for his own use. He was found guilty at first instance but his ultimate appeal to the Divisional Court was upheld. The appellate court held that, at the time of finding, there was no mens rea to support a conviction of larceny. [7]

Trash

In California v. Greenwood (1988), the United States Supreme Court ruled that trash left at curbside for collection is effectively abandoned and subject to taking by anyone. [9] This ruling superseded the California Supreme Court ruling, in People v. Krivda (1971), that placing trash at curbside was not necessarily an abandonment of same to the police or general public, as a reasonable assumption would be that only a particular regulated entity (i.e. the trash collection company or department) would take possession. [10]

Thus garbology (the examination and analysis of trash) and dumpster diving are legal in the United States. Consequently, the abandonment of private medical records by placing them in trash has resulted in civil penalties against companies doing so. [11] [12]

Australia

In Victoria, the Victorian Crimes Act [13] defines this crime by exception "72.3(c) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

In Queensland, there is a similar warning. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft</span> Act of taking anothers property without consent

Theft is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word theft is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as larceny, robbery, embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, or receiving stolen property. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, while in others, theft is defined more narrowly. A person who engages in theft is known as a thief.

Larceny is a crime involving the unlawful taking or theft of the personal property of another person or business. It was an offence under the common law of England and became an offence in jurisdictions which incorporated the common law of England into their own law, where in many cases it remains in force.

Criminal conversion is a crime, limited to parts of common law systems outside England and Wales, of exerting unauthorized use or control of someone else's property, at a minimum personal property, but in some jurisdictions also applying to types of real property, such as land or to patents, design rights and trademarks. It differs from theft in that it does not include the element of intending to deprive the owner of permanent possession of that property. As such, it is a lesser offense than the crime of theft. Criminal conversion specifies a type of conversion in that it involves criminal law, not civil law.

In criminal law, property is obtained by false pretenses when the acquisition results from the intentional misrepresentation of a past or existing fact.

Finders, keepers, sometimes extended as the children's rhyme finders, keepers; losers, weepers, is an English adage with the premise that when something is unowned or abandoned, whoever finds it first can claim it for themself permanently. The phrase relates to an ancient Roman law of similar meaning and has been expressed in various ways over the centuries. The 1982 English Court of Appeal case Parker v British Airways Board expanded the phrase, with the judgement of Donaldson L.J. declaring "Finders keepers, unless the true owner claims the article". Difficulties arise when exploring how best to define when exactly something is unowned or abandoned, which can lead to legal or ethical disputes, especially as jurisdictions often differ in their approach.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft Act 1968</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Theft Act 1968 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales.

Dishonesty is acting without honesty. The term describes cheating, deficient probity, lying, deliberate withholding of information, being deliberately deceptive, or showing knavishness, perfidiousness, corruption, treachery, or deficient integrity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treasure trove</span> Hidden store of valuables

A treasure trove is an amount of money or coin, gold, silver, plate, or bullion found hidden underground or in places such as cellars or attics, where the treasure seems old enough for it to be presumed that the true owner is dead and the heirs undiscoverable. An archaeological find of treasure trove is known as a hoard. The legal definition of what constitutes treasure trove and its treatment under law vary considerably from country to country, and from era to era.

Trover is a form of lawsuit in common law jurisdictions for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property. Trover belongs to a series of remedies for such wrongful taking, its distinctive feature being recovery only for the value of whatever was taken, not for the recovery of the property itself.

California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property</span>

Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property are categories of the common law of property which deals with personal property or chattel which has left the possession of its rightful owner without having directly entered the possession of another person. Property can be considered lost, mislaid, or abandoned depending on the circumstances under which it is found by the next party who obtains its possession.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland taking without owner's consent (TWOC), also referred to as unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle (UTMV) describes any unauthorised use of a car or other conveyance that does not constitute theft. A similar offence, known as taking and driving away, exists in Scotland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Possession of stolen goods</span> Category of crime

Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has bought, been given, or acquired stolen goods.

Estray, in common law, is any domestic animal found wandering at large or lost, particularly if the owner is unknown. In most cases, this implies domesticated animals rather than pets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Property crime</span> Criminal acts against private property

Property crime is a category of crime, usually involving private property, that includes, among other crimes, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, shoplifting, and vandalism. Property crime is a crime to obtain money, property, or some other benefit. This may involve force, or the threat of force, in cases like robbery or extortion. Since these crimes are committed in order to enrich the perpetrator they are considered property crimes. Crimes against property are divided into two groups: destroyed property and stolen property. When property is destroyed, it could be called arson or vandalism. Examples of the act of stealing property is robbery or embezzlement.

Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". In England and Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that recognise it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft/larceny.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scots property law</span> Rules relating to property in Scotland

Scots property law governs the rules relating to property found in the legal jurisdiction of Scotland. As a hybrid legal system with both common law and civil law heritage, Scots property law is similar, but not identical, to property law in South Africa and the American state of Louisiana.

Obtaining property by deception was formerly a statutory offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

<i>Parker v British Airways Board</i>

Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004 is an English property law case ordered by the Court of Appeal.

Hashavat Aveda is a "positive commandment" in Jewish law that requires the return of lost property to its rightful owner.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Tooher, Joycey (2008). "finding of property". In Peter Cane and Joanne Conaghan (ed.). The New Oxford Companion to Law (Oxford Reference Online. ed.). Oxford University Press Inc. ISBN   9780199290543 . Retrieved 8 August 2011.
  2. 1 2 3 4 A. E. S. Tay (Jul 1964). "Bridges v. Hawkesworth and the Early History of Finding". The American Journal of Legal History. 8 (3): 224–237. doi:10.2307/844171. JSTOR   844171.
  3. 1 2 "Larceny by Finding (reprinted from the Law Times (London))". The American Law Register. 7 (6): 381–383. Apr 1859. JSTOR   3302356.
  4. "Theft Act 1968, chapter 60". Legislation.gov.uk. 26 July 1968. Retrieved 10 Jul 2023.
  5. "Your guide to property found in a public place". WestYorkshire.police.uk. Jan 2019. Retrieved 10 Jul 2023.
  6. "What do I do if I have found something?". Lancashire.police.uk. Jan 2019. Retrieved 10 Jul 2023. If the item is retained by the police, you may be able to claim you can collect the property if the owner is not identified within 28 days. There are certain items that members of the public are not allowed to retain and claim under any circumstances. These include mobile phones, computers, laptops, iPads and other tablets. If you find cash, you will not be able to keep hold of it, but will be able to claim it after 28 days.
  7. 1 2 T. Hadden (Nov 1965). "Larceny by Finding. How Not to Reform the Law". The Cambridge Law Journal. 23 (2): 173–175. doi:10.1017/s0008197300082635. JSTOR   4505022. S2CID   145108712.
  8. Bernard J. Davies (Apr 1967). "Larcenous Mistake in England and the United States of America". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 16 (2): 491–521. doi:10.1093/iclqaj/16.2.491. JSTOR   757387.
  9. "California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)". Justia (from United States Reports . Retrieved April 18, 2021.
  10. "People v. Krivda". Justia. Retrieved April 18, 2021.
  11. Chelsea Conaboy (January 7, 2013). "Doctors, billing company pay $140,000 penalty for records tossed in public dump". Boston.com. Boston Globe. Retrieved April 18, 2021.
  12. Mark Morris (December 14, 2014). "Settlement reached in medical billing records case". Kansas City Star. Retrieved April 18, 2021.
  13. "Crimes Act (Victoria)" (PDF). Legislation Victoria. 6 Oct 2020. Retrieved 6 Oct 2020.
  14. "Lost, found and stolen property". Queensland Government. 6 Oct 2020. Retrieved 6 Oct 2020. If you find goods or money, you can't keep them. In fact, police can charge you for keeping goods or money you've found that you don't hand in.