-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Sentry video of attempted thief
- Thread starter nicholb
- Start date
willow_hiller
Well-Known Member
In my neck of the woods, attempted unlawful entry of a motor vehicle: D.C. Law Library - § 22–1341. Unlawful entry of a motor vehicle.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
I can play this game, too, but better.
OP is from Minnesota, which, as of 2018, has a clause for TAMPERING with a vehicle codified into their law.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2018/cite/609.546
609.546 MOTOR VEHICLE TAMPERING.
A person is guilty of a misdemeanor who intentionally:
(1) rides in or on a motor vehicle knowing that the vehicle was taken and is being driven by another without the owner's permission; or
(2) tampers with or enters into or on a motor vehicle without the owner's permission.
I was always amazed at how lightly the law deals with vehicle theft in general. Someone who steals a car in NJ (assuming no other infractions) is only subjected to a $500 fine and 1 year suspension. If they do it again, it goes up to $750 and two-year suspension, and if they do it a third time $1000 and a ten-year suspension.
2C:20-2.1. Additional penalties for theft or unlawful taking of motor vehicle
1. a. In addition to any other disposition authorized by law, a person convicted under the provisions of this chapter of theft or unlawful taking of a motor vehicle shall be subject:
(1) For the first offense, to a penalty of $500.00 and to the suspension or postponement of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of one year.
(2) For a second offense, to a penalty of $750.00 and to the suspension or postponement of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of two years.
(3) For a third or subsequent offense, to a penalty of $1,000.00, and to the suspension or postponement of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for 10 years.
1. a. In addition to any other disposition authorized by law, a person convicted under the provisions of this chapter of theft or unlawful taking of a motor vehicle shall be subject:
(1) For the first offense, to a penalty of $500.00 and to the suspension or postponement of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of one year.
(2) For a second offense, to a penalty of $750.00 and to the suspension or postponement of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of two years.
(3) For a third or subsequent offense, to a penalty of $1,000.00, and to the suspension or postponement of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for 10 years.
Last edited:
willow_hiller
Well-Known Member
Did you CTRL+F on that page and not see the word "attempt" so you figured it's not illegal? You're wrong. You're just flat wrong.
"This section is referenced in § 23-581."
"(a)(1) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant having previously been issued therefor (C) a person who he has probable cause to believe has committed or is about to commit any offense listed in paragraph (2) and, unless immediately arrested, may not be apprehended, may cause injury to others, or may tamper with, dispose of, or destroy evidence;"
"(2) The offenses referred to in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) are the following:
Theft of property valued less than $250 section 111 [D.C. Official Code, § 22-3211]
Theft of property valued in excess of $250 section 111 [D.C. Official Code, § 22-3211].
Unauthorized use of vehicles section 115 [D.C. Official Code, § 22-3215]."
And just for a kicker, theft in subsection 22-3211 is defined as:
"(b) A person commits the offense of theft if that person wrongfully obtains or uses the property of another with intent:
(1) To deprive the other of a right to the property or a benefit of the property"
No mention of "attempt" but this kids "intent" is clear. Why are you defending this criminal?
It's very hard to prove intent. Now, if you catch him with a bag full of *sugar* stolen from other vehicles, then it gets easier.
In this case you have a kid pulling door handles. Is he trying to get in the vehicles to potentially steal from them? Sure.
How can you prove that's his motive beyond a reasonable doubt?
Here's what's going to happen. A LEO will provide a summons, or in extremely rare cases arrest this person, assuming they don't have any additional stolen property on them.
The DA will review the case. Unless there's substantial evidence that THIS GUY was the cause of actual thefts or auto-burglaries the DA will probably refuse to prosecute. If the suspect is on probation or parole, maybe the DA takes the case.
The suspect's attorney will say that there was no intent to steal, and that the guy was only looking for a warm or cool place to sleep. He's been out searching for jobs, and he was extremely tired that day. They'll bring up that the suspect didn't have any stolen property on him, and no burglary tools. Sure there have been thefts in that parking garage recently, but nobody bothered to pull prints, and this guy wasn't identified before this as a suspect.
At best the DA offers a plea for a criminal trespass. The guy gets off on a $150 fine, plus $100 in court costs. He probably never pays it.
The officer spent an hour investigating the crime, an hour writing the report, another 4 hours on the day of court on overtime.
The DA spent an hour reviewing the case, an hour meeting with the public defender, and an hour in court.
The Court spent 6 man-hours of labor facilitating the proceedings. Some are clerks, security, collections, some are judges.
The kid's public paid for defender spent 4 hours reviewing, preparing a defense, and negotiating the terms of the plea.
The kid has a trespass on his record, which will drop off in 18 months if he pays the fine.
You've spent $5,000 plus to give a kid a $150 fine. Meanwhile the officer isn't out catching more bad guys and the DA now doesn't have time to properly review a domestic violence case and it gets dismissed.
I'm not defending the kid. It's obvious what he's doing. But people here seem to think that the police are going to go all CSI Miami on a kid pulling door handles. They don't have the resources, and furthermore, it doesn't make sense for them to spend the limited resources they do have on *sugar* like this.
There's a slight beacon of light. Often this isn't the only thing the kid will be up to. Maybe he's got a little dope in his pocket, or an outstanding warrant. Now we're on to something. But a kid with no priors pulling handles, nobody gives a *sugar*.
It's unfortunate all around.
A couple major cities around here don't even prosecute first time car thieves. They charge them with trespass in a motor vehicle because it's too hard to prove that they were the one that actually stole the vehicle and what their intent was.
Every month or two, the local patrol in the neighborhood catches a car thief, and holds them or watches them until police arrive.
There was one last week: Shomrim Catches Thief Breaking into Cars Red Handed
As far as I can tell, there are no long term repercussions for these kids. We've had a reoccurring issue with package thieves, and while it was going strong, my wife started putting our used diapers into the packages on the front porch until it tapered down.
A few years back, a thief stole my wife's credit card from her cellphone/wallet while she was shopping. A couple hit about 5 or 6 stores in a diagonal pattern on the street, and I called every store manager and had them set the video aside for the investigating detective. He called me to thank me for doing all of his leg work, but in the end, nothing transpired. The credit card company didn't much care, and the police never ID'ed the suspects from the video.
The sense I got from the high-profile TeslaCam news stories were that the police really only got involved once it got picked up on the national news. My neighbor submitted some TeslaCam footage recently of kids throwing eggs at moving vehicles, and they told him they'd take the video footage to the local schools to try and identify them, but he never got any follow-up on that either.
There was one last week: Shomrim Catches Thief Breaking into Cars Red Handed
As far as I can tell, there are no long term repercussions for these kids. We've had a reoccurring issue with package thieves, and while it was going strong, my wife started putting our used diapers into the packages on the front porch until it tapered down.
A few years back, a thief stole my wife's credit card from her cellphone/wallet while she was shopping. A couple hit about 5 or 6 stores in a diagonal pattern on the street, and I called every store manager and had them set the video aside for the investigating detective. He called me to thank me for doing all of his leg work, but in the end, nothing transpired. The credit card company didn't much care, and the police never ID'ed the suspects from the video.
The sense I got from the high-profile TeslaCam news stories were that the police really only got involved once it got picked up on the national news. My neighbor submitted some TeslaCam footage recently of kids throwing eggs at moving vehicles, and they told him they'd take the video footage to the local schools to try and identify them, but he never got any follow-up on that either.
Sherlo
Member
That's what I remember. Must be my CA upbringing. Unlocked meant tacit permission to enter.
1) I was just checking to make sure everyone's doors are locked to prevent theft.
2) I thought it was my friend's car but was mistaken.
3) I thought I saw a dog locked inside.
There was no crime in that video. There was no ID that would lead to a searchable address if this was even enough to give probable cause for a search. Maybe some PD's would like to see the video and keep an eye out for the guy.
The flip side is you absent mindedly walk up to a Tesla that looks like yours but doesn't open for you. Oops, it's not yours. Its owner sends his Sentry video to the police, some guy checking to see if his car is locked and ready to steal something. Now the PD is looking for your face in that parking lot. Maybe they stop you one day to question you.
and that is for the Jury to decide. if it is a 70 year old granny .vs. a bunch of thugs who have had a big prior rap sheet of breaking into cars.
