3 ms·
Thank you for highlighting the key distinction and referencing a source with more information. > although good luck convincing anyone that you lacked such inte
by 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 agoTemporarily 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 agoDo you have a source for that? My googling suggests the opposite.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cmeacham98 4y agoSorry, 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.
- oneeyedpigeon 4y agoThat's what I was thinking. I'm sure a good lawyer could argue that, if they have a reasonable way of informing the owner, but they don't do so, they are in fact intending to deprive them of the vehicle.