If there is a law or other legal basis for the other person to control and retain that object, either for a certain period of time or indefinitely. So if your phone is legally taken by a police officer, you can`t “steal” it, but you still may not have the right to take it. But that would be treated as another crime, not “theft.” As we learned from the broke bicycle thief, returning stolen property doesn`t usually work as a defense against theft, but it could do wonders when it comes to accidentally borrowing bad. So if you are charged with theft and return the allegedly stolen item, it is entirely possible to get a plea agreement or fee reduction. The situation is different when a person stole an item and later felt unwell and returned it. In this case, the original intention was always to keep the article in question permanently. Since there is intent, it is quite possible to prosecute a person for stealing an object that he returns later. The return is not relevant for the fees. The person took the object intentionally and permanently, and that is all the prosecutor`s office needs to know to get justice. However, that doesn`t mean you shouldn`t return something you`ve taken.

If you return an item you stole, you are more likely to receive a lighter sentence. The court will likely heed your remorse and charge you accordingly. If you just keep the item, the court will likely impose harsher theft penalties on you. After all, both the shopkeeper and the police can claim “reasonable faith” for each of their actions after that, so it`s best to reduce their likelihood of something unpleasant. Assuming that the item you want to recover is actually your rightful possession and the other person has no legal right/interest in the item: Yes, you can recover the item without the intervention of law enforcement or courts, as long as you are not breaking any laws to get it back. Self-help is not a defense against your own criminal behavior, although you might be able to convince an investigator (judge/juror) in a trial that your behavior was “justified.” Understandable and legally justifiable are not always interchangeable terms in the law. If you don`t have legal access to it and you have to commit another type of crime to get it back. So you can`t legally recover money by hacking or cheating someone`s bank account, or recover an item by breaking down their front door or using illegal force, or by making illegal threats and blackmail. On the other hand, if you were invited by them to visit their house (or if they persuaded them to let you visit) and found it and picked it up during your visit with their consent, or they took you away and while you were rummaging through the glove compartment of the car and seeing your property there, So the issue of legal consent to access may not be an issue, meaning that withdrawal under these conditions (even against their objections when they have done so) may be technically legal in many cases, depending on the exact circumstances of the case and the applicable law. Theoretically, no, because it must be taken with the intention of definitively depriving the owner of his property. The problem arises when someone has legal ownership of your car, then it becomes complicated. Even if you leave, you can, but you have to do some things, like at least try to inform the person.

Before discussing the idea of returning a stolen item, it is important to understand that although theft is an important category, there are different degrees of theft in this category. Logically, most of us know this; A person is not punished for stealing a Milky Way in the same way as a Ferrari. In California, there are two levels of flight: small theft and large flight. Minor theft is classified as the theft of an item valued at $950 or less. The major theft is all well stolen above this amount. In general, petty theft is punishable as a misdemeanor and can require up to six months in prison, depending on the circumstances and background of the person. Great theft is what the law calls “fragile.” This means that major theft can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony. Again, it depends on the circumstances of the theft, the person`s history, and their intent. I saw this post today and it got me thinking. Is it really legal? An interesting variant of this applies in English law, although I doubt that it is legally relevant in American law. In English law, “theft” was defined by the Theft Act 1968 as follows: “A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another person with the intention of permanently depriving the other person”. This meant that a person who could demonstrate to a court that he or she did not “intend” to “permanently deprive” the property or not to act “dishonestly” or “appropriately” (to treat it as if he or she were the owner) could in fact have a strong legal defense against a charge of theft.

Florida`s theft laws make it clear that theft of any kind is illegal, but recently a Florida court assessed the situation differently. In T.D.W. v. Staat, 42 So.3d 959 (fla. 4. DCA 2010), the accused youth (FYI, the youths` names are always abbreviated) was convicted of robbery because he forcibly approached a victim to take his cell phone. T.D.W. testified in court that he believed in good faith that the victim had his cell phone and that he would take it back. At this point, it is important to note that theft costs technically stem from “intent to deprive an owner of property.” So how could a theft happen if the victim of the theft wasn`t actually the “owner” of the cell phone? In T.D.W., the court dismissed T.D.W.`s conviction on the basis that “reasonable belief in the right to the allegedly stolen property is a full defence to a charge of theft,” as stated in an earlier court judgment in Thomas v. Staat, 526 So. 2d 183 (Fla.3d DCA 1988). The burden of proving that someone stole an object with the intention of keeping it permanently instead of lending it rests with the Public Prosecutor`s Office.

There are several ways to do this, depending on the circumstances. The simplest type of evidence is incriminating evidence. For example, if you text a friend and tell them that you “borrowed” a new pair of jeans from the store, but it becomes clear from the conversation that you won`t return the jeans, the prosecutor`s office may use the messages as evidence that you intended to steal. This is the most obvious way to prove that a theft has taken place. In real life, you can break other laws just to get your back. Assuming a “typical” store and store staff, you would ask them to pick up the manager, and you would firmly declare that you claim that these are your stolen goods and therefore not in possession (and that they do not have the right to make decisions about it), and you will take them back. They would offer an identification or contact option and tell them they have a way to contact you if they want to dispute this through lawyers or the police. They would offer to wait for the police if they wish, but claim that you cannot separate from them and that they can call the police if they do not agree; When they arrive, tell the police exactly the same thing, and that you gave your ID and waited there, as a sign of good faith, and invite them to come back with you to see where you live or proof of purchase or anything else so relevant. You would tell the police that if they think you have committed a crime under the law, they must of course arrest you for that, but if not, you want to leave now. You would comply with any request from the police to give it to the police or business by claiming that it is your property and that you prefer not to do so, or by asking if you will commit a crime (if so, which), if you refuse, and refuse if you feel able to do so.