Falsely Accused of Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle

His argument of not recalling he had relinquished ownership to employer is a red herring. If op believed he owned the van, he would have simply told employer to go to Hell as it is not employers van. In telling employer he would return it when finished with his stated activity, he acknowledge employer is the owner and has a right to possession of the van. He admitted the same to the cop investigating the matter. Acknowledgement op had no right or possession and intent to deprive owner of possession equals theft of the vehicle.


The statement op made to the cop (the call while op was emptying the van) along with the acknowledgment op knew it to be employers van is adequate probable cause to arrest.

Op's got nothing here but a real serious criminal charge staring him in the face. Admitting your guilt to a cop is tough to overcome.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

His statement that he owned the van are laughbable. He outright said he knew the van wans't his. He stated he'd signed over the title. His only idea that somehow the fact that the title had not been submitted to the DMV created a loophole that let him out of the fact that he was depriving the owner of the owner's property..

---

I don't recall where OP said that at the time he outright said he knew the van wasn't his. And please show me some law that says that signing an open title transfers ownership to anyone. On the contrary. The law says that a title must be filled out in full with the name and address of the buyer and the buyer's signature. There is no loophole. How do you know that the boss wasn't going to sell the van to a third party at some point? How would OP even know that a transfer had taken place unless his boss told him?

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

You're going to argue that by refusing to return the vehcile and directing the owner to his lawyer he had no INTENT to deprive him of the vehicle? That's going to be far fetched on its face as well...

---

Well if he believed that he was the owner of the van and police are telling him he doesn't own the van, then directing them to his attorney doesn't show any intent to deprive.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

This is NOT as much of a slam dunk as people make it out to be. The elements of the felony are there. Now I agree, this is pretty much a misunderstanding, but frankly, if the original poster goes shooting off his mouth with the same details he gave us, the prosecutor should have no problem with getting a conviction...

---

I don't see anything that OP has said that indicates he believed the van belonged to his boss at the time of the incident. The prosecution will have to show intent.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

It was lawful use up to the moment employer said; I want my van back now. If the op retained it for any amount of time after that, there was an intent to deprive the owner of his property (and as the statute itself clearly states as being a requirement ) even if only temporarily.

---

He told police that he was taking his tools and inventory home and that he will bring the van back when done. Where is the intent to deprive?

OP didn't have any conversation with the boss when he left the office. He just left. The boss called him and said bring me the van. OP agreed to do that but was then called by police wherein he said he would return the van.

I don't think we know how to time travel yet.

Quote:

---

He told police that he was taking his tools and inventory home and that he will bring the van back when done. Where is the intent to deprive

---

are you asking that question with seriousness? Any time the owner of property says; give me my property, and you continue to go the opposite direction, you are acting with intent to deprive the owner of their property. What don't you understand about that. The law even states even if the deprivation is temporary it is still theft.

Op did not say he would return the van. Op said employer could pick up his van from op's attorney (reminder; op stated he could not afford an attorney for the matter of hand so one really has to question whether op has an attorney of record which he may have been referring to)

Quote:

---

I don't see anything that OP has said that indicates he believed the van belonged to his boss at the time of the incident. The prosecution will have to show intent.

---

how about:

I'll return the (implied: your) van after I remove my tools

he (employer) can pick up the [implied: his] van from my attorney's office

if op believed he owned the van, why would he even consider relinquishing possession to the employer? That alone shows op did not claim ownership of the van

btw; a certificate of title is presumptive but rebuttable proof of ownership. Title (actual ownership) exchanged hands immediately upon endorsement and delivery of title to the employer. That means not only has presumptive title been relinquished, actual title had as well. Op had no claims to the van and was quite aware of it proven by the continued promise of returning employers van to employer.

I will leave it at this; what the law says and what a prosecutor can prove beyond reasonable doubt are two different things. And if I were on the jury and heard the testimony from the police that called him, and OP, and the boss (assuming that what he posted here was true) I would have plenty of reasonable doubt that there was intent to steal the van or deprive the owner of the van.

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

I will leave it at this; what the law says and what a prosecutor can prove beyond reasonable doubt are two different things. And if I were on the jury and heard the testimony from the police that called him, and OP, and the boss (assuming that what he posted here was true) I would have plenty of reasonable doubt that there was intent to steal the van or deprive the owner of the van.

---

So intentionally retaining possession of the van against the explicit demand to the contrary somehow doesn't equal intent in your book.

Quote:

---

The defendant

---

Quote:

---

did so with the intent to temporarily or permanently (a) deprive the victim of his or her right to the property or any benefit from the property,
or (b) appropriate the property of the victim to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to it; and

---

sounds textbook guilty to me

I won't disagree the charge suggests an over zealous prosecutor but as well, we obviously have only one persons side of the story.

So what about your suggested malicious prosecution suit against the employer? Still see that as valid and viable?

Well if there were to be probable cause (and I think that has a lot to do with what the boss told or didn't tell the police) any claim for false arrest or malicious prosecution would not succeed. If the boss filed a false report and OP is found not guilty, then I still think there are claims to be made.

Probable cause would be independently supported by, or actually even determined by, the contact between the police and the op when the op recieved the call from the police.

Op's statement (paraphrased); I'll relinquish the owners van when I'm done with it.

It wasn't the op's option to determine when he relinquished the employers van. He was required to relinquish possession upon the demand of the owner. Failing to relinquish possession upon demand of the lawful owner upon their demand is theft.

The complainant does not require probable cause to file a complaint. As long as he does not falsify his testimony with the intent to cause the other party to be injured in some way, it's not malicious prosecution. The police and or prosecutor makes the call whether the complaint warrants further action. Then the prosecutor must seek a warrant based on a presentation of probable cause to a court.

malicious prosecution is hard to prosecute, especially given the level of immunity given a person filing a complaint. It's going to have to be quite evident the boss provided false information and it was with intent to cause injury to the op. From what has been stated so far here, the boss did not provide false information in order for the op to be charged with a crime.

There had to be probable cause for the warrsnt to be issued so there is obviously PC present. Just the same, the lack of probable cause does not mean a malicious prosecution suit is viable. It rests on whether the comlainant provided false information (not lack of or incorrect information but knowingly false) AND it was done with malice.

It's not that big of a deal... God and I know I had no intention of taking "his" vehicle. Now just to prove it to the courts.

FYI I talked to the Investigator on the case a few months ago and he said he didn't think I stole it Either but he had already turned everything over to the State.

Quote:

---

Quoting Anonomous1

---

It's not that big of a deal... God and I know I had no intention of taking "his" vehicle. Now just to prove it to the courts.

FYI I talked to the Investigator on the case a few months ago and he said he didn't think I stole it Either but he had already turned everything over to the State.

---

It's not that big of a deal? Well, you're the one being charged with a felony so if it isn't a big deal to you, well, you're nuts.

Re: the investigators statement: since the da has filed charges apparently the da is not of the same mindset as the investigator and since the da is the guy prosecuting the case, I think I would be very concerned with his position on the matter.

The DA was just voted out... I believe this is just a case they filed to fill the dockets for the new DA

How am I nuts?
The state has no evidence whatsoever...
It's only a case of "he said she said".
I have proof I owned the vehicle a couple days prior to the incident. Also it's even in the affidavit that it was a take home vehicle and I had full permission to use it.
When I left with the vehicle I thought it was still under my ownership and legally owned, tagged, and insured by myself.
Additionally I had a vested interest in the vehicle since I had thousands of dollars of equipment and parts in it.

Any capable Judge will throw this out.