I was watching a clip of Live PD on YouTube, and they arrested someone for possession of stolen property despite no indication that the person was aware that the property was stolen. (I recall this aspect precisely, but as to the details, I think they were a passenger in a car that the driver was accused of stealing, or something like that, but I’m not completely sure.)
In many states (Ohio, for example), the burden to prove criminal intent is not as stringent or is nonexistent. This means that one can be charged with the crime—usually a minor degree of felony—even if one did not know the item in question was stolen. In the Ohio case of State v. Awad , the goods did not need to actually be stolen, just represented as such.
ISTM that if this is correct, then anyone is liable to be arrested and even convicted of this crime simply for buying anything from eBay, not to mention the local flea market.
"{¶ 18} Several moments later, Awad inspected the cigarette cartons and asked Medley about the Ohio tax stamps on them:
{¶ 19} “[Awad]: It’s Ohio, right?
{¶ 20} “[Medley]: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know you can’t mess with anything but that. I wouldn’t steal 'em if they was something else though.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 21} Awad asked Medley about another cigarette brand, and Medley responded, “OK. See, I can only steal what’s on the dock at the time.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 22} As part of the conversation preceding the second transaction, a similar dialogue took place:
{¶ 23} “[Awad]: What do you have?
{¶ 24} “[Medley]: I got uh * * * eleven Newports, uh * * * two Kools and two Marlboros. I would have called, man, but * * * shoot. I had to steal them as quick as I could to get 'em and get up out of there. (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 25} It is difficult to imagine any language that the officer could have employed that would have been more explicit than the word “steal” used in both transactions."
So it’s not like the defendant innocently bought something off eBay.
Generally speaking, if someone receives stolen goods unknowingly, they will not be prosecuted (the goods will be confiscated and returned to the rightful owner). It may be that this process involves them being detained by law enforcement at some point, while the truth is being sought.
If someone receives stolen goods knowingly, it’s quite straightforwardly a crime.
What if someone buys a (say) TV out of the back of a truck. They may not “know” it was stolen but it is certainly a suspect transaction. Is that person guilty of a crime?
What I’m getting from the first couple of responses is that people are not disputing the Wiki statement that unknowingly possessing stolen property is a crime, but are saying 1) that the specific case cited by Wiki had aggravating circumstances, and 2) that in practice a person is unlikely to be actually prosecuted if they possessed it unknowingly.
Some crimes require mens rea. A “guilty mind”. So, if you do something with no knowledge that you are committing a crime then you cannot be guilty of committing that crime.
I am unclear on where the line is drawn between innocent because you did not know and guilty because even if you did not know you should have known.
That is the point of the Ohio law cited, that ‘willful blindness’ to the circumstances is not an excuse for receiving stolen property. So buying a new TV being sold from the back of a truck in an alley is supposed to raise people’s suspicions just as much as a TV being sold by someone wearing a black mask and descending from a fire escape. Remember that the situation occurs when someone is caught in possession of stolen merchandise, the state has an obligation to determine if that person was involved in the theft, and that they can’t use an “arm’s length” excuse to avoid prosecution.
A guy who worked for me as a driver bought a car privately after seeing it advertised in the local paper. He took out a loan to pay for it.
A few months later the police knocked on his door and told him it was stolen. They questioned him for some time before taking it away.
The person he bought it from was convicted for the theft, but my driver had no hope of recovering his money from an out-of-work ex-convict with no assets.
A recent Supreme Court decision found in favor of two physicians convicted for running opioid pill mills, because, y’know, they might have believed they were practicing in good faith while (in the case of one defendant) raking in millions.
“Gee, I had no idea” can be an effective defense with the right lawyers.
No person shall receive, retain, or dispose of property of another knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the property has been obtained through commission of a theft offense.
It is not a defense to a charge of receiving stolen property in violation of this section that the property was obtained by means other than through the commission of a theft offense if the property was explicitly represented to the accused person as being obtained through the commission of a theft offense.
[...]
[...]
That statute was last updated in 2013 and the standard jury instructions are behind a paywall. However, the 2009 statute (identical paragraph A), relevant factors, and jury instructions were republished in the opinion State v Adams, 2009 Ohio 6863 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009):
The criminal offense of receiving stolen property is codified in R.C. 2913.51, which provides, in pertinent part:
No person shall receive, retain, or dispose of property of another knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the property has been obtained through commission of a theft offense.
[...]
[...]
In determining whether reasonable minds could conclude that the defendant knew or should have known the property was stolen, the Court may consider:
(a) the defendant's unexplained possession of the merchandise, (b) the nature of the merchandise, (c) the frequency with which such merchandise is stolen, (d) the nature of the defendant's commercial activities, and (e) the relatively limited time between the thefts and the recovery of the merchandise.
State v. Davis (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 109, 112, 550 N.E.2d 966, citations omitted. Likewise,
[i]n determining whether the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the property was obtained through a theft offense you must put yourself in the position of this defendant with his/her knowledge, or lack of knowledge, and under the circumstances and conditions that surrounded him/her at that time. You must consider the conduct of the persons involved and determine if their acts and words and all the surrounding circumstances would have caused a person of ordinary prudence and care to believe that the property had been obtained through the commission of a theft offense.
Unless there was some serious document forgery going on, it sounds like your guy didn’t get the title signed over or go to the DMV to register the car in his own name. Had he done so, he would have quickly discovered the problem and might have been able to track down the seller (with cops in tow) and get his money back.
It’s hard for me to imagine buying a car and not getting the title.
I’m curious how that squares with the defendant’s right not to testify? Is it common in law that someone has the right to their silence not being held against them, but the court may hold against them their lack of an explanation? I.e. “your failure to explain implies guilt…”
Recently I was hosting a fancy dress party dressed as Robin and I remembered I wanted to sell my TV.
Well the front door was crowded with animated party-goers, so I decided to leave by the fore escape and … (voice trails off)
While the judge can instruct the jury that the defendant refusing to testify does not imply guilt the jury will only have one story to consider…the one the prosecutor laid out. If the defendant will not testify there is no counter-narrative. The jury has no alternate theory to consider when they wonder why you were buying a TV out of the back of a truck in a dark alley at 2am in the morning.
Well, just logically, there is a difference between an assumption of guilt when a person exercises their right not to testify and failing to provide an explanation. And if any explanation is provided as a defense I don’t think they can then plead the 5th if that account is challenged.
I think a prosecutor might not ask a defendant for an explanation just to avoid this problem. They would simply state in opening and closing arguments that the defendant offered no legitimate explanation for possession of the stolen property.
My guess is it wasn’t an actual car loan - that is, a loan made specifically to enable someone to buy a car which results in a lien being placed on the car and repossession if the borrower doesn’t pay. I doubt you can get that sort of loan in a private party sale. It had to be more of a personal loan/credit card advance/line of credit type of thing, where the loan is not made for a particular purchase and there is not a lien placed on the item purchased ( I could draw from my home equity line of credit to buy a car - but the lien will be against my house, not the car. I could take out a “passbook loan”* to pay for the car- but my bank account is held as collateral, but not the car. )
* A loan where you can borrow up to a certain percentage of the balance of a bank account which is held as collateral. They are still often called “passbook” loans although I haven’t seen a passbook in years.
As is the case with credit cards, it’s certainly possibly for a borrower to simply refuse to repay what’s owed - but anyone doing this would be blowing a nice big hole in their credit rating. Good luck getting a loan for your next car.