Anecdotally, I hear about cases where a burglar will sue a homeowner because their pool didn’t have X Y or Z safety feature. A recent article had a Kidnapper suing for breech of contract in regards to money offered under duress. :dubious:
One step further brings me at my question.
What is the liabillity to the owner of an illegal item, if police discover it in possession of a burglar?
As long as the police have probable cause to believe the contrband was in the possession of the home owner before the theft, they can arrest/charge. The Prosecutor of course has the discretion to pursue it or not.
A home owner even has a “duty to trespassers” as it is known, so depending on the facts, there could be liability, maybe not?
A contract “against public policy” is void and NON enforceable. I assume he was Pro Se, representing himself, as NO Attorney in thier right mind would take that case.
If he drowns in your unfenced pool or trips on a rake left in the yard, you are fine. If you leave land mines in the front yard, or a spring gun pointed at the front door, you are in trouble.
At common law, before resorting to self-defense a person had a duty to first try to retreat from the harm. There was one early English case that stated something to the effect that even in your home, you had to retreat to the “back wall” of the house before defending yourself.
Almost all states have enacted “castle doctrine” laws which state that you have no duty to retreat IN YOUR HOME and can defend yourself and your home.
These are very often confused with newer “stand your ground” laws enacted in fewer states that modify this even further by saying that you have no duty to retreat in ANY PLACE, public or private where you have a legal right to be.
Either one has nothing to do with a duty owed to a trespasser. Self-defense is a different beast.
If someone steals your stash of Meth, it’s probably a good idea to leave the cops out of it. It’s also not generally smart to involve the police when your hooker cheats you out of money, or when your dealer short changes you, or when your fence doesn’t live up to his promises.
If a burglar gets caught with your illegal stuff, the police may come by to ask if it’s yours, best bet is to say “Nope, never seen that stuff before, that guy must have made a mistake, there was no burglary here, I’d have noticed.”
Sure, as far as I know there is no exclusionary rule for the actions of private individuals. If Smith, a private person (i.e. not the authorities), obtains evidence illegally which evidence inculpates Jones, the evidence can be used against Jones no problem.
I had an modified automatic weapon stolen from my home years ago at a time when it was “inappropriate” to own such. It was later recovered. I don’t know if the thief was charged over it or not. The police returned it to me missing several key components and no questions.
I’ve heard of a couple of incidents where a child pornographer was caught after they were burglarized, and the burglar turned them into the police when they realized what they had stolen.
Not sure of the legality of that would be in terms of search warrants, chain of evidence and such, but it has definitely happened (the cases I remember were in the UK FWIW).
For lesser crimes I imagine it is down to the discretion of the officer involved. And of course the difficulties of relying on the police to protect when you are on the wrong side of the law yourself is a big part of the reason the drug trade (and other illegal activities) are associated with such violence. If I run a liquor and get robbed I call the police, if I’m a drug dealer and I get robbed I don’t have the option.
I guess it depends - It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where the value of a stolen item (either to me or in monetary terms) is greater than the penalty for owning / possessing it.
If someone steals your stash of Meth, it’s probably a good idea to leave the cops out of it. It’s also not generally smart to involve the police when your hooker cheats you out of money, or when your dealer short changes you, or when your fence doesn’t live up to his promises.
Unfortunately, your advice did not come soon enough for this poor sap, who was swindled by a hooker… and then hit with a $700 ticket when he complained to the police.
The problem the police have - they arrest a burglar with a big bag of meth or some kiddie porn. He says “I stole it from 123 Main Street”. Now what?
The police did not find the material there. They have only the word of an addmitted or caught criminal that the goods originated where they said. I depends if they have corroborating evidence. If I were writing this script for L&O, the next step would be to get a warrant based on this information, and see if the police could get more than just a burglar’s say-so, which likely is not enough evidence.
There’s all the othe crap. Does the incriminating evidence have the original owner’s fingerprints? When analyzing, say, a computer for kiddie porn, there would be a massive amount of other evidence often - browsing history, etc. This would indicate when the material would have been searched for, downloaded, etc. This might establish a timeline for when the evidence was created. This also assumes the owner is smart enough to not say, “yes, that was me doing that.”
Recall, I think it was Mystic River(?), the evidence (bloodstains?) is found in a car that was stolen. Once the vehicle has been handled by multiple people, other than the police, how do you attribute the evidence to one particular person - anyone could have planted it.
I would think the next scene in L&O would be for the cops to harrass the guy at work and threaten to arrest him then he makes a small admission like, “My brother-in-law was over last week. He’s a former drug user trying to get his life straight.” THEN they get the search warrant based on that admission.
No, the best L&O trick would be for Lenny and Rey to walk over to the house to “discuss” the burglary with the homeowner and when he gets to the door step, Lenny should turn to Rey and say:
Lenny: Rey, did you hear that?
Rey: Sure did Lenny!
Lenny: Sounds like a woman screaming. Exigent circumstances!
Rey: (kicks down door)
We had a guy come in once and say he broke into a house but then left when he realized it was a drug dealers house because of all the dope he found behind a television set he was going to steal. He was charged and the address of the house was turned over to the drug unit.
Not exactly what the OP asked, but over the years I have been dispatched a few times to burglary complaints where the victim would include bags of marijuana on the list of what was taken.:smack:
I did note that the L&O types loved to walk in and arrest people at work. After the perp walk, it turns out they were mistaken and he’s let go, without any apology or attempt to get his job back. Or they threaten to bring in the health inspectors, etc. and make his life hell. Ah, to serve and protect… Ve haff vays…
It’s one thing to use the burglar’s info to get a search warrant so you can find the material on site and lay charges, it’s another thing to use evidence in the burglar’s possession with only his word it came from the original location. The evidence from the former might get a conviction (prove the burglar did not plant it) and the latter will never get a conviction, absent corroborating evidence.
What’s problematic about this scenario? The police charge the burglar with possession of the contraband, as they normally would. They then investigate whether he did steal it from 123 Main Street, as they normally would if they received any report about a burglary; if they conclude he did, and they think they can prove it, then they also charge him with burglary (the only question I can see that might be complicated is whether you can be found guilty of stealing illegal property - I haven’t come across that issue yet in my studies), and potentially charge the previous owner of the contraband with possession, as they normally would. It’s three crimes rolled into one but they’re all straightforward crimes. So the answer to the OP is yes, B could get arrested if the police could prove he’d been in possession of the illegal item.
The issue about burglars being able to sue homeowners is often blown out of proportion by the media, because it sounds like such chutzpah on the part of the burglar, but it has good logic behind it. If you deliberately wire up your swimming pool to electrify the water and a burglar trips into the pool and is electrified, he’ll be able to sue the homeowner on the grounds that it’s dangerous to keep a massive electrified pool of water in your yard. If a fireman fighting a fire next door fell into the pool, or a kid getting back the ball he accidentally kicked over the fence did the same, no one would argue that they have a right to sue the homeowner; the same applies to the burglar, even if it seems like cheek for a burglar to sue in that situation.