I came across this article on an EMS site I frequent.
Basically, this guy stole some Vicodin from house he responded to with the fire department. What surprised me was this line:
Is this a quirk of New York law, or a general legal principle?
That sounds really weird to me. If my neighbour dies, it’s not like I can just start taking his stuff.
Perhaps there is information missing and it has something to do with there not being complainant available to press charges.
“Since when was you no pardner of mine, Gaffer Hexam, Esquire?”
“Since you was accused of robbing a man. Accused of robbing a live man!” said Gaffer, with great indignation.
“And what if I had been accused of robbing a dead man, Gaffer?”
“You COULDN’T do it.”
“Couldn’t you, Gaffer?”
“No. Has a dead man any use for money? Is it possible for a dead man to have money? What world does a dead man belong to? T’other world. What world does money belong to? This world. How can money be a corpse’s? Can a corpse own it, want it, spend it, claim it, miss it? Don’t try to go confounding the rights and wrongs of things in that way.”
–opening scene of Our Mutual Friend by Charles Dickens
No, the corpse doesn’t have property rights, but at the instant of death they transfered to his estate. While it may take a while to sort out who that is, that person, or the state if he has no heirs, owns it all.
Problem is, Vicodin is a controlled substance, so the only legal way to dispose of it, after the owner dies, is to pour it down the drain.
So, even if it wasn’t theft, he broke the law.
AND… Even if one can’t steal from the dead, one can steal from his estate/heirs, so it still doesn’t fly.
Over here you’re supposed to return all unused drugs to a pharmacist for proper disposal, as they are often upleasant chemicals (especially some cancer drugs and hormones).
If you were to do that in the US (with ampoules of diamorphine, or vicodin etc), but be stopped by the police on the way to the pharmacy, could you be convicted of possesion of a controlled substance?
Most definitions of theft include the phrase “from a person.” By law, a “person” has to be alive. Prescription drugs are non-transferrable, so no right of ownership is passed upon the death of the owner (to an estate or otherwise), therefore no act of theft is possible (unless the charge of burglary is available). What is left is illegal possession/distribution/sale of a controlled substance.
IANAL, but this seems feasible when you work through all the definitions.
Okay, let’s try a hypothetical. Suppose my father died, leaving ten thousand dollars cash in the wall safe. According to the will, that money was to be split evenly between his wife and his three living children.
Before mom (the executor) could divide it up, I open up the safe and take it all.
Does it really make sense that I couldn’t be charged with theft from Dad’s estate??
The difference is that the money is transferrable to another person. The money will end up disbursed to the heirs. What they’re saying is that the Vicodin is NOT transferrable; the death of the owner leaves the Vicodin unowned.
Even so, they were at the house for an “unattended death.” IME, a paramedic will usually pronounce the pt dead (either on their own or in consultation with a doctor). So it’s entirely possible the drugs were stolen from a technically still living person. Although that could be hard to prove.
Well but, I agree it’s not theft. But if a living breathing person tries to give controlled stubstances to another person, they’re both committing a crime. (in this case, just the live guy).Must be something they could charge him with.
Plus it’s tacky.