Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft Is Possession of a stolen vehicle a felony??

[Lisa lucas]

Jurisdiction

California

My boyfriend was detained the other day because apparently he rented a vehicle from Enterprise and stopped paying it and never returned the vehicle I knew nothing about him not paying it or that it was even reported stolen. He is being charged with possession of a stolen vehicle. So I guess my question is how severe is a charge like that and how much time can he possibly do?B that he has no previous criminal record as an adult and has never done something like this before.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

It is a misdemeanor with up to 1 year in county jail.

But don't be surprised if the charge is modified to a felony because he is the one that actually stole the car.

 

[adjusterjack]

My boyfriend

Time to dump him and raise your standards. There had to have been some indication of stupidity long before he stole the car.

 

[army judge]

So I guess my question is how severe is a charge like that and how much time can he possibly do?

Your state is decriminalizing crimes.

It will be a rare event if even serial criminals spend years in one of California's penal colonies.

These days criminals aren't being arrested, the way they were in yesteryear.

Under California law, you cannot be convicted of both receiving stolen property and the actual theft of the property.

Therefore, your pal is unlikely to be charged with both receiving stolen property and grand theft auto under Penal Code 487(d)(1) PC.

This CA licensed attorney explains the offense in great detail have yourself a "look see" and enjoy the lawyer's wisdom:

Receiving Stolen Property - Penal Code 496 - a defense lawyer's guide

 

[mightymoose]

That he was caught driving a car that was reported stolen does not mean he was driving a stolen vehicle.
He did not take the vehicle without the owner's consent, which is an essential element for the theft. He did deprive the owner of use of the vehicle and owes payments and penalties for that time. This is more of breach of contract/civil issue than a criminal issue.
Consider that we are neighbors and you come borrow a bottle of ketchup. I expect you to return it when you are finished, but three weeks later you have not. Did you steal, and are you in possession of stolen property? No, not at all. I willingly gave it to you to use.
That this is a car and not a bottle of ketchup is really no different.
I would be curious to know if this charge sticks. Expect the DA to offer something less in hope of a plea, but I am not certain there is any crime at all.... Just a civil dispute over the lost rental value.

 

[Zigner]

That he was caught driving a car that was reported stolen does not mean he was driving a stolen vehicle.
He did not take the vehicle without the owner's consent, which is an essential element for the theft. He did deprive the owner of use of the vehicle and owes payments and penalties for that time. This is more of breach of contract/civil issue than a criminal issue.

Here in California, this is 100% false. The guy can certainly be charged with grand theft under California Penal Code section 487(d)(1). This is theft by "trick".[/QUOTE]

 

[mightymoose]

Here in California, this is 100% false. The guy can certainly be charged with grand theft under California Penal Code section 487(d)(1). This is theft by "trick".

Not false at all.
Only if it can be proven that this was the intent at the time the vehicle was acquired. Perhaps false identification was used?

That the vehicle was not returned on time does not make it a stolen vehicle, but yes, the intent at the time it was rented, if it can be proven, could support theft charges.

That the offense is possession of stolen property and not GTA indicates that supportng evidence needed for GTA likely does not exist. This person will be able to produce a contract indicating how he lawfully acquired the vehicle with permission. So long as the information on it is true and accurate this is not a stolen car.

 

[Zigner]

Not false at all.
Only if it can be proven that this was the intent at the time the vehicle was acquired. Perhaps false identification was used?

That the vehicle was not returned on time does not make it a stolen vehicle, but yes, the intent at the time it was rented, if it can be proven, could support theft charges.

That the offense is possession of stolen property and not GTA indicates that supportng evidence needed for GTA likely does not exist. This person will be able to produce a contract indicating how he lawfully acquired the vehicle with permission. So long as the information on it is true and accurate this is not a stolen car.

You are simply wrong about how this works here in CA. Your opinion notwithstanding, people can be (and are) charged with grand theft for this type of action.

EDIT: See also California Penal Code 484(2) and California Vehicle Code 10855

 

[mightymoose]

Not without more circumstances than are divulged here. All we know is that the car was not returned on time. That is not a crime.

I know you like to disagree for the sake of argument, but you are filling in blanks with your own assumptions to do so.

How do you believe this vehicle was acquired by trick?

 

[Zigner]

That the offense is possession of stolen property and not GTA indicates that supportng evidence needed for GTA likely does not exist. This person will be able to produce a contract indicating how he lawfully acquired the vehicle with permission. So long as the information on it is true and accurate this is not a stolen car.

I'll concede that it's possible that not enough time passed for it to be considered grand theft, at which point it is embezzlement per CVC 10855. In any case, it's a criminal matter, not civil.

 

[Zigner]

Not without more circumstances than are divulged here. All we know is that the car was not returned on time. That is not a crime.

I've posted the two sections of CALIFORNIA law that say that it IS a crime. You've shared opinion.

 

[mightymoose]

I'll concede that it's possible that not enough time passed for it to be considered grand theft, at which point it is embezzlement per CVC 10855. In any case, it's a criminal matter, not civil.

So is it your understanding that the person arrested was an employee of the rental agency?

 

[Zigner]

So is it your understanding that the person arrested was an employee of the rental agency?

Whatchya been smoking?

Law section.

10855. Whenever any person who has leased or rented a vehicle wilfully and intentionally fails to return the vehicle to its owner within five days after the lease or rental agreement has expired, that person shall be presumed to have embezzled the vehicle.


Stop expressing your opinion and actually start reading the information I'm sharing.

 

[mightymoose]

I've posted the two sections of CALIFORNIA law that say that it IS a crime. You've shared opinion.

You are assuming informal to meet the elements of those laws.

Did this person intend to keep the vehicle or were they planning to return it and pay for it?

Was there any misrepresenting or false pretenses at the time it was acquired? How was the rental agency tricked?

You seem very certain I am wrong (I could be when more details are known)- but please explain.

 

[Zigner]

You are assuming informal to meet the elements of those laws.

Did this person intend to keep the vehicle or were they planning to return it and pay for it?

Do you know what the definition of "presumed" is?

 

[Zigner]

You are right about something: We don't know the boyfriend's mindset. However, had there been extenuating circumstances, I'm sure the OP would have mentioned them. In any case, based only on what we've been told, a crime was committed. Could things change with additional information? Sure. But the fact is that the guy was charged with a crime and that crime could be upgraded or downgraded as things come to light.

This entire discussion started based on your erroneous statement that taking the vehicle without the owners consent was an essential element of the crime of theft and that this was more of a civil issue. Keeping the vehicle without the owner's consent is also theft in this state.

 

[mightymoose]

10855. Whenever any person who has leased or rented a vehicle wilfully and intentionally fails to return the vehicle to its owner within five days after the lease or rental agreement has expired, that person shall be presumed to have embezzled the vehicle.

Hmm... You may have found something there, and that may be what the charge is amended to as it is much more appropriate for the situation. I was unaware of the 5 day rule with vehicles. That is interesting.

That is the only detail that is problematic here. It most certainly does not satisfy 487 and there is no information supporting trick/deception.

 

[Zigner]

I disagree that the grand theft charge can't be supported. If someone commits embezzlement, it can be charged as grand theft.

EDIT: I guess that makes my earlier contention that this was grand theft by trick incorrect. It is grand theft by embezzlement.

 

[mightymoose]

I disagree that the grand theft charge can't be supported. If someone commits embezzlement, it can be charged as grand theft.

Well as I noted, that leap requires information we don't have. That he was arrested for 496 and not 487 suggests that information does not exist.

The embezzlement angle seems the only way to go based on the information provided. Looking at the calcrim for it I don't see a way out from that 5 day rule.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The 496 charge likely arose from the fact that he was driving a car that was stolen. It is low hanging fruit at the time of the arrest.

The prosecutor will have a lot more information when it comes time to get an indictment.