gotta figure out this formatting. Stay tuned.
Close, but not quite. This kind of thing was my specialty for close to 25 years. This may vary from state to state, but in California, when a street or road is vacated, the underlying fee - that is, the property that was formerly encumbered by a street/road - reverts to whoever has the right to it. That may be the adjoining owners on either side, both extending to the centerline of the right of way (which may not be the center of the street/road). It might be an adjoining owner on one side all the way across, leaving the owner on the other side unchanged. It might even be neither party, but the owner from whom the right of way was originally acquired. Or it could be somebody else entirely. These are just a few of the crazy ways that rights to underlying fee can get screwed up.
This has naught to do with burglary. There are those, though, that consider governments acquiring property under threat of eminent domain a kind of theft!
I’m working on a project going through this exact situation (paper street vacation) in Kentucky. In fact it’s working its way through the city council approval as we speak. So yeah, it does vary by state.
My reference for the railroads is also Midwest focused…Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, etc. especially as it relates to the electric interurban railways of the early 20th century. They did not have the benefit of land grants or eminent domain and had to purchase their rights-of-way from farmers (in built-up areas they more often obtained municipal franchises to operate in the streets). Since most companies only lasted a couple decades before abandonment, very often precipitated by 25-year franchise terms that came up for renegotiation around the start of The Great Depression, the land reverted back to the original owners.
That’s an equitable doctrine, which means it applies only to that branch of law called equity. The line between equity and the rest of law (which is, confusingly but for historical reasons, called “law”) has become increasingly blurred over the centuries, but it still exists, and lawyers still distinguish between equitable and non-equitable remedies. Restitution of property to its owner is not equitable, so I don’t think “clean hands” would apply.
Personally, I consider residential burglary to be a lot more serious than a minor property crime. Entering someone’s home with the intent to commit a crime is a serious felony. (Or should be)
I’m pretty sure they didn’t bother reporting the incident at all actually, as I really doubt grabbing the bike was actually legal.
In that area (Stokes Croft in Bristol, for those familiar), bike theft was extraordinarily common, same as shoplifting, and the bike was a widespread make, nothing unusual. Odds are at least a couple of the same brand had been stolen in the last week in the area and probably many had not been reported.
That raises an interesting question. Whether you kept the gold chain or turned it into the cops, the burglar won’t know. it’s going to be personal either way. So what do you do then if you are afraid of him coming back?
At least around here, it’s possible to register a bike with the police, just for this eventuality: They’ll keep a record of the serial number, and give you a difficult-to-remove sticker to attach to the frame. If a bike is so registered, it’d be easy to restore it to its proper owner, even if it’s a common make and color. But it’s optional, and I don’t know what percentage of bikes are registered in this way.
Yeah, a similar system exists, there were regular events encouraging people to mark them.
Part of the problem was that many people bought their bike second hand; it’s an area with a high student population, so lots of short-term residents. People who bought a bargain bike off a guy on something like facebook marketplace may not want to get involved in those sort of schemes, as no-one wants to take their new bike to get registered by the police only to have it confiscated as stolen goods.
I suspect the true theft figures were far higher than the already extremely high level recorded, as many people just didn’t report the theft, assuming they wouldn’t get the bike back back anyway.
Consider this scenario: You call a plumber to work on your sink. During the course of the repair, his $10k necklace falls off and he doesn’t notice. You find the necklace after he’s gone. He comes back the next day asking for his necklace. Are you legally required to give it back to him?
The necklace in the OP was left in the house during a criminal act. Does the fact that it was lost while committing a crime affect the ownership rights differently than if it was lost by someone who was authorized to be in the house?
A plausible reason to why a burglar might ask for it back (other than criminals often do stupid and illogical things) is that he might need it to post bail. In his bail hearing he could say that he needs the necklace back so he can sell it to have enough to make bail. Or he might want it back after he serves his time after being convicted. Or he might actually be found not guilty because the prosecution didn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and wants his necklace back.
I don’t know the law. But the law often parallels common sentiment. And my sentiment is that you would be a jerk to refuse to return the necklace to the plumber, whereas the thief would be a jerk for asking you to return his necklace.
I think it ought to matter why the necklace-loser was in your house. Was it a good, neutral, or evil reason? The plumber is good, your asked him to come. The burglar was evil, he wanted to hurt you. A kid who opened your unlocked door to get in out of the rain would be neutral. He neither was invited nor did he intend harm.
Almost all laws vary by jurisdiction, but i would expect many of them to recognize those differences.
This is the key point I don’t think this matters in most (any?) jurisdictions. There is the concept of a abandoned property, and if someone is there for an evil reason they probably aren’t coming back promptly to claim it, making it more likely to be classified as abandoned. But the law doesn’t distinguish between these cases. If your plumber doesn’t come back to claim their gold chain for two years it’s considered abandoned just as much as the burglar.
I have a trivial example. When I was in college thieves tried to steal my car all the time, but were thwarted by my ignition lock. They finally towed it. When I recovered it - it was tripped and declared totaled - I found a nice big screwdriver in the trunk.
No evidence issue since it was not like the Cambridge police were going to investigate. I have the screwdriver today. My car was such a p.o.s. I felt I came out ahead. And I bought a better car with the insurance money.
A Ford Pinto.
Only under the principle the burglar is unlikely to claim it. But no, and probably not under the law in most places.
Stealing a car by towing it sounds like a lot of risk and effort for a p.o.s. car…
If the person that dropped the item is known to be a burglar, then the item dropped may very well to be stolen to begin with. That is why you tell the police about it, and not just assume that the police will probably not be interested.
Referring back to the OP: The item dropped is not real estate or a car, and nothing is said about it being held for two years.
My answer to the question asked is a definite “no” if this information is withheld from the police, and a possible no unless the police also disregard the possibility of the item being stolen.
The fun begins when after the construction of the railway/street/road, the original properties were often subdivided and sold, but the legal descriptions didn’t always include the area under the railway/street/road, and lot of those descriptions went to the edge of the right of way but not under it. Hence, when the right of way was vacated/abandoned, there would be strips of land owned by somebody who is long gone, or possibly an entity that no longer exists. Situations like that sure make title companies earn their coin!
I had a similar experience when my house was broken into and robbed many years ago. The police were pretty disinterested. One of them looked at the kicked-in door, sort of shrugged and said something like “they probably didn’t leave prints so we won’t bother dusting for any”. They were there maybe 5 minutes, told me not to hold my breath waiting for any of my stolen stuff to be recovered, and took off. If the bad guys had left anything behind they didn’t seem like they would have given half a crap about it. They certainly weren’t going to go all CSI on any evidence.
I am not in your jurisdiction, but I think, just to be fair to the dog, that gold chain now belongs to Mayhem.
Plus, rottweilers are the kind of dog who look good in a gold chain.