4 ms·
"California Vehicle Code 10852. No person shall either individually or in association with one or more other persons, willfully damage or tamper with any vehic
by 7402 14y ago
"California Vehicle Code 10852. No person shall either individually or in association with one or more other persons, willfully damage or tamper with any vehicle or break or remove any part of a vehicle without the consent of the owner."
This is an all-purpose section that, for example, makes it possible to arrest someone who is walking down the street trying the handles on car doors to see if they are unlocked - even if they don't find any that are unlocked. I guess it would probably apply if someone broke off a windshield wiper while putting a pamphlet there. If someone was sufficiently irate, it might even apply to a used McDonald's bag being put under someone's wiper.
- grecy 14y agoInteresting. Thanks.
- bdcravens 14y agoSo any pitch day attendees who didn't like this, you know what to do: while they didn't get caught in the act, pretty sure posting on HN will allow you to press charges as they've confessed to the crime. My recommendation: the judge should order the culprit to work 6 months at a non-social-media startup with a real business model.
- Dylan16807 14y agoThe word 'tamper' can seriously be applied to checking if a door is locked and causing no change whatsoever? I hate legal speak.
- 7402 14y agoContext matters. (See, for example, http://hollister.ca.gov/Site/html/gov/office/police/documents/12-03810852.pdf http://hollister.ca.gov/Site/html/gov/office/police/document... ). Interpreting "Legal speak" is not like a compiler checking syntax. It's more like interpreting a project's specifications in a way that makes sense. Just as in any important job, judgement matters.
- Dylan16807 14y agoYeah, context matters a lot. And right next to 'tamper' it has 'damage' and 'remove'. Tugging a handle should be equivalent to staring in the window. Very suspicious but not a violation of this particular statute.