5 ms·

The article mentions two women who had each reported their cars stolen after the "courtesy" tow which makes one wonder -- _is_ this theft? If not, why? Does it

by abeppu 4y ago

The article mentions two women who had each reported their cars stolen after the "courtesy" tow which makes one wonder -- _is_ this theft? If not, why? Does it matter if it's done by a private towing company?

petesergeant 4y ago
> _is_ this theft? If not, why? No, the asset is being moved, not retained by the mover, and it's ostensibly being done for the public good (edit: see the link further down the thread for why this matters). If _eminent domain_ isn't theft, this definitely isn't. > Does it matter if it's done by a private towing company? Not if they're deputized.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  With eminent domain can they move a house to a new location, the first the owner hears of it is when they see their house missing?
- abeppu 4y ago
  > No, the asset is being moved, not retained by the mover I don't get this argument. If I take something which doesn't belong to me, say from a store, and move it two blocks away and put it down, I would still be stealing right? Is the perpetrator required to 'retain' something for it to be theft? If I'm caught while stealing and drop the item, "I just moved it without the owners consent" probably isn't going to cover me. > If _eminent domain_ isn't theft, this definitely isn't. Clearly I'm not especially acquainted with the law, but when the government exercises eminent domain doesn't it have to go through some legal process? And my understanding is that owners must be compensated for the property that is taken under eminent domain.
  - abeppu 4y ago
    As a followup on the "ostensibly being done for the public good" part, the article describes the courtesy towing practice in a way that sounds like it's sometimes for private uses: "moves vehicles from legal parking spots for special events, construction or emergencies". I have to assume that the organizers of those special events or the firms involved with that construction have paid for some permit which is meant to give them exclusive use of the street parking, in which case it sounds like the public good is only indirectly from the revenue from those permits. Apparently the ability of municipal governments to exercise eminent domain solely for the purpose of increasing its revenue was only established by a court case in 2005. So in 2004 would you have agreed that courtesy towing for a private special event or private construction project was possibly theft? Or at least possibly a 5th amendment violation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    > If I take something which doesn't belong to me, say from a store, and move it two blocks away and put it down, I would still be stealing right? No, not if you don’t intend to deprive the rightful owner of it (although good luck convincing anyone that you lacked such intent). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft > Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property
    - abeppu 4y ago
      Thank you for highlighting the key distinction and referencing a source with more information. > although good luck convincing anyone that you lacked such intent So it sounds like in the courtesy towing context, the city claims that it doesn't have any intent to deprive people of the use of their property, but it's behaving in a way which a reasonable person would totally anticipate would lead to people being unable to use their property (by dropping vehicles in locations which are never communicated to the owner).
      - cmeacham98 4y ago
        Temporarily depriving somebody of their property counts, these towings are clearly theft. The actually interesting legal question revolves around who (if anybody) is liable in this situation.
        School-Cotton 4y ago
        Do you have a source for that? My googling suggests the opposite.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        cmeacham98 4y ago
        Sorry, I should have been more clear: it often isn't "theft" (or "larceny"), legally speaking, but it usually is some lesser crime under a name like "unauthorized use/borrowing" or "misappropriation". I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that doesn't have a law that covers unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, so I can practically guarantee it is illegal. In Philadelphia I believe the relevant statue is https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.028.000..HTM https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.02... - although I'm actually unsure if towing would count as "operating" here? That's a question for their lawyer.
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    I think a better example than eminent domain would be civil asset forfeiture (at least as practiced in the US). Although I guess a lot of people would say that is theft.
  - kareemsabri 4y ago
    IANAL and haven't read the laws of Philly but it seems pretty obvious that moving your property off a public street is not considered theft.
    - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
      But if a private individual did that, surely you would consider it theft? So where's the line, why's it OK for a private company but not a private individual? If I'm self employed and registered as my own company, can I do it then?
      - kareemsabri 4y ago
        The private company versus individual has nothing to do with it. The private company / individual is acting on behalf of the state, and the state provides itself the authority to take your property without your consent.
impossiblefork 4y ago
Here in Sweden it would have been a theft-adjacent crime which is translated into English as 'criminal conversion', and it seems that criminal conversion fits. A crime where someone does something to somebody's property without intending to actually take the property, or not to take it permanently. Not being familiar with this jurisdiction I can't say whether that's the actual law though. Depending on how it's defined it could easily be theft.
exolymph 4y ago
Morally, yes it's theft. Legally, probably not.
crazygringo 4y ago
No it can't be theft in a legal sense, since it's legal per statute. And no it doesn't matter if it's a private towing company as long as it's acting on behalf of the state (which it is/was). But what the plaintiffs are arguing is that it's failing due process at the constitutional level, which to perhaps oversimplify means the city isn't being responsible/fair with its law. Nobody disputes it has the right to move vehicles for legitimate reasons (which these seem to be), but obviously it ought to be able to track where it moved them to and ensure it's not leading to fines and/or damage without recompense -- which it is clearly not doing. Their lawyers know the city isn't following due process, which is why the city is offering these payouts.

by abeppu 4y ago

petesergeant 4y ago

> _is_ this theft? If not, why? No, the asset is being moved, not retained by the mover, and it's ostensibly being done for the public good (edit: see the link further down the thread for why this matters). If _eminent domain_ isn't theft, this definitely isn't. > Does it matter if it's done by a private towing company? Not if they're deputized.

quickthrower2 4y ago
With eminent domain can they move a house to a new location, the first the owner hears of it is when they see their house missing?
abeppu 4y ago
> No, the asset is being moved, not retained by the mover I don't get this argument. If I take something which doesn't belong to me, say from a store, and move it two blocks away and put it down, I would still be stealing right? Is the perpetrator required to 'retain' something for it to be theft? If I'm caught while stealing and drop the item, "I just moved it without the owners consent" probably isn't going to cover me. > If _eminent domain_ isn't theft, this definitely isn't. Clearly I'm not especially acquainted with the law, but when the government exercises eminent domain doesn't it have to go through some legal process? And my understanding is that owners must be compensated for the property that is taken under eminent domain.
- abeppu 4y ago
  As a followup on the "ostensibly being done for the public good" part, the article describes the courtesy towing practice in a way that sounds like it's sometimes for private uses: "moves vehicles from legal parking spots for special events, construction or emergencies". I have to assume that the organizers of those special events or the firms involved with that construction have paid for some permit which is meant to give them exclusive use of the street parking, in which case it sounds like the public good is only indirectly from the revenue from those permits. Apparently the ability of municipal governments to exercise eminent domain solely for the purpose of increasing its revenue was only established by a court case in 2005. So in 2004 would you have agreed that courtesy towing for a private special event or private construction project was possibly theft? Or at least possibly a 5th amendment violation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  > If I take something which doesn't belong to me, say from a store, and move it two blocks away and put it down, I would still be stealing right? No, not if you don’t intend to deprive the rightful owner of it (although good luck convincing anyone that you lacked such intent). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft > Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property
  - abeppu 4y ago
    Thank you for highlighting the key distinction and referencing a source with more information. > although good luck convincing anyone that you lacked such intent So it sounds like in the courtesy towing context, the city claims that it doesn't have any intent to deprive people of the use of their property, but it's behaving in a way which a reasonable person would totally anticipate would lead to people being unable to use their property (by dropping vehicles in locations which are never communicated to the owner).
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      Temporarily depriving somebody of their property counts, these towings are clearly theft. The actually interesting legal question revolves around who (if anybody) is liable in this situation.
      - School-Cotton 4y ago
        Do you have a source for that? My googling suggests the opposite.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        cmeacham98 4y ago
        Sorry, I should have been more clear: it often isn't "theft" (or "larceny"), legally speaking, but it usually is some lesser crime under a name like "unauthorized use/borrowing" or "misappropriation". I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that doesn't have a law that covers unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, so I can practically guarantee it is illegal. In Philadelphia I believe the relevant statue is https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.028.000..HTM https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.02... - although I'm actually unsure if towing would count as "operating" here? That's a question for their lawyer.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  I think a better example than eminent domain would be civil asset forfeiture (at least as practiced in the US). Although I guess a lot of people would say that is theft.
- kareemsabri 4y ago
  IANAL and haven't read the laws of Philly but it seems pretty obvious that moving your property off a public street is not considered theft.
  - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
    But if a private individual did that, surely you would consider it theft? So where's the line, why's it OK for a private company but not a private individual? If I'm self employed and registered as my own company, can I do it then?
    - kareemsabri 4y ago
      The private company versus individual has nothing to do with it. The private company / individual is acting on behalf of the state, and the state provides itself the authority to take your property without your consent.

impossiblefork 4y ago

Here in Sweden it would have been a theft-adjacent crime which is translated into English as 'criminal conversion', and it seems that criminal conversion fits. A crime where someone does something to somebody's property without intending to actually take the property, or not to take it permanently. Not being familiar with this jurisdiction I can't say whether that's the actual law though. Depending on how it's defined it could easily be theft.

exolymph 4y ago

Morally, yes it's theft. Legally, probably not.

crazygringo 4y ago

No it can't be theft in a legal sense, since it's legal per statute. And no it doesn't matter if it's a private towing company as long as it's acting on behalf of the state (which it is/was). But what the plaintiffs are arguing is that it's failing due process at the constitutional level, which to perhaps oversimplify means the city isn't being responsible/fair with its law. Nobody disputes it has the right to move vehicles for legitimate reasons (which these seem to be), but obviously it ought to be able to track where it moved them to and ensure it's not leading to fines and/or damage without recompense -- which it is clearly not doing. Their lawyers know the city isn't following due process, which is why the city is offering these payouts.