The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent


Alright, guys got another question for you for roadside chat. This one is long fact pattern, but I think it's worth it right. This one is the question is determining if a bicycle is stolen based on an alleged victims accusation. So this question comes from an officer in California. And he did a very, very good job give me, you know, a lot of background for this case. And the essence of this case is, you know, is there probable cause? Is there forth an issue, and basically taking an alleged victims word at face value, that somebody has their bike and it's stolen? Right, what not much more. And I think that's a great scenario. So let's let me read the fact pattern. And let me address a few issues. Okay. So a little long, but again, that's why we're here to see what you would do. Alright, so this is what he said, a resident of a neighboring city came to our PD to report that a bicycle was stolen from her home about three days ago. The theft had not been reported to her local PD prior to coming to our PD, very common, right. But she did post a theft on a social media app called next door. The bicycle was an older beach cruiser style bicycle, with a child seat attached to the back. The resident did not have any proof of ownership, such as a purchase receipt or a serial number of the stolen bike. Now, at this point, one question I do have the option for the officer? And I don't know the answer is, is does the resident also have pictures of her, you know, with the with the bike with her kid, you know, on the bike, you know, that would kind of help circumstantially that the bike belonged to her. I'm thinking that she did, I'm gonna assume that she did, because it's going to be pretty hard to ask people to look for a stolen bike, with just some words, you're going to probably want a picture. So let's assume that the victim here has a picture that that's all she has those a picture of her riding the bike or, you know, next to the house and so forth. A few days after the victim posted the stuff on the app, another user on the app posted a picture showing that a male a black male was riding the bicycle, and that the bike matches description that the victim said was stolen, right. So again, I'm assuming as a picture here, if no picture, it's less circumstantial evidence that she owns the bike. According to the person who posted the picture, the male was last seen riding the bike in our city in the top city, behind the shopping center with a transient encampment nearby. Now, the encampment is along the 405 freeway, and the victim requests that the officers check on this area and see if they can locate her bicycle. And also check the area and saw a bicycle matching description. Matching description perfectly. Right. So now, almost now I'm thinking that there is no picture. But anyway, it was tied to a tree inside the cabin. Next to one of the tents about one foot or so from this particular tent, the officer contacted a white male who did not see the other suspect riding the bicycle from the camp. The person agreed to talk to the police. And he denied knowing anything about the bicycle. After talking with the officer, the person in the tent untied the bicycle and basically handed it over to the officers. They look, I don't know anything about this, you know, it's all yours, right? The officer booked it in as found property. Now, again, the person originally riding the bike was never located and then end up returning the bicycle to the victim. So the officer that did this concluded the that that the bicycle, you know, was the same bike and that it was was a stolen bike. So basically, the officer believed that he had probable cause, for now, the question by the officer is this. Number one, do we have a fourth amendment issue for seizing the bicycle with what we knew at the time? And number two, it has a generally what has to be established to determine property found the stolen and who's the lawful owner when a serial number is not available? Or on File Linking a person to it the victim has a victim prove that this is their property. All right. Let me see one thing, okay. They want to be they want to kind of the officers like look, you know, is there some liability potentially, about this? This person, the original person ride the bicycle, same coming back to the penis like, Hey,
you guys took my bike. Alright, let's go with the first question. Is there a fourth one issue about seasonal bike? The answer is yes. There would be if there was actually a seizure. Quite frankly, I'm not sure there was a fourth amendment seizure here under the facts given to me because it seems to me that After this person who claimed that he had nothing to his bike, and you know, it was right next to his tent, I, you don't have to see the hole, I've had to see the encampment to see if it could reasonably be believed to be another person's bike. But let's assume that it seems clear that this bike is associated with that tent. Now that tent is this person's home. And, you know, there's nobody else around to claim the bike, being a potential being mislaid, or left there and so forth. Since that is kind of his property, you know, his, he has an exhibition of privacy in that tent, under the circumstances, it seems to me that he actually gave the property to the police. And that this property, you know, was lawfully given over to the cops. So I'm not even sure that the cops actually have a forthcoming seizure under these facts. But, you know, even if they even if this was a seizure, you know, do the cops have probable cause? Well, that's where I NS with this is really the meat of the argument here. That's where it's, it's thin at best. Let's assume that the person said, Yes, this is my bike, or this is my friend's bike. And the cop said, Well, look, you know, we believe that bike that bike is stolen, we're gonna take it. I think that's a problem. Right? I think that's the problem of the facts of this case, because in order to determine ownership of property, when it's the He Said, She Said, typically, it's circumstantial evidence, right? What evidence is the cop have to reasonably conclude or at least a fair probability that the property is stolen? Now, when when you don't have you know, original ownership documents and zero numbers? The pictures will certainly help because, you know, the, the alleged thief has some explaining to do when the victim comes forward with all these pictures, like, hey, look, this is a picture a two years ago with me and this bike, right? And they can say, well, I bought it from this person. And of course, that might dilute the argument. But the point is, is what circumstantial evidence that you have is the person who's riding the bike is, for example, here does the bike is incompatible with the person driving now riding it if if the person riding it, it's a girl's bike, and it's a male, and it has a child seat, and there's no child that's you know, or it doesn't fit right the bike is a kid's bike and the person riding is an adult look for stuff like that. Also look for you know, recent spray paint that they are, you know, they're changing the color of the bike and you can still smell the recent fumes right of the of a rattle campaign job. Look for that the alleged thief is abnormally nervous, why should a person be abnormally nervous when they when they lawfully possess the bicycle? Look for history of theft? Are they in paper? Are they under parole or probation supervision for some crime associated with stolen property? prior convictions and arrest and so forth? Right? Are they lying to you about anything? Why would somebody who's truthful and on the up and up lie to you about stuff about the bicycle and where they got it from and so forth. So the point is, is that you're gonna have to look for circumstantial evidence. Now, if this is all we have this if this was my case, and we are dealing with the seizure issue, we are looking at taking the bike from contest and ownership. I personally would not take the bike if it was contested. If the if the alleged thief on the these factors say no, this is my bike, I bought it, you know, it's legit. And there was no other circumstantial evidence, right? The nervousness, the deception, the rattle campaign, rattle campaign job, the prior histories of theft, and so forth. If none of those facts existed, I would basically tell the victim that, you know, you're going to have to go to civil court, and that's when you're going to have to go to small claims court, or hire an attorney right to sort this out, because I don't have enough for criminal conduct. And that's what police are. Remember, when you're talking to these victims say, Look, I'm a criminal investigator. In order for me to take enforcement action, I have to have a lease probable cause. And if I don't have probable cause, I cannot take enforcement action, it turns into a it can also be a civil issue at the same time, but your next remedy is civil. So which answers, I think I answered the second question. So, you know, if we if we have not effectively established ownership here, right, at least by fair probability for probably cost purposes, you know,
could there be some liability? And the answer is, you know, if the person comes back to the PD, then, you know, in claims that it's their bike, and the you know, the person Sue's civilly and there is no probable cause, then of course, the PD owes this person, a bicycle with a child. See, that's something you guys are probably thinking like, you know, hey, cops are usually Writing Situations. There's a lot of intuition going On and six cents. And I certainly agree with that. You know, so maybe this guy never shows up in life because he, you know, let's say he did steal the bike, right? So no harm, no foul. But don't forget, you know, at the end of the day, if the cop was incorrect, you know, we don't want to be on the wrong side of the law either. So long fact pattern, but I can tell you that, you know, you have been in situations like this, I had been in situations like this when I saw this, I'm like, You know what, this is really good for my audience, right? Just remember some of the ground rules, right? So, to recap, and we're gonna be done. When you're dealing with stolen property, and it's contested ownership. I want you to and you're going to take you're going to pick a side, right, you're going to pick a side, that is a fair probability that this is a victim. And, you know, he or she is correct. I believe that property stolen. Tell me why. What circumstantial evidence do you have that helps prove your case, right. And that's what you should be looking for. If there's not enough circumstantial evidence, you should probably stay neutral and send them to civil court. All right. All right. So I hope it helps keep the questions coming. We're going to be doing a lot more of this stuff, pushing a lot more content. Don't forget to go to blue to gold calm for your search and seizure books your search and seizure training. I'm doing live in-person ,on-demand, live online, all the the formats are there for you guys. 

 Alright, so next time, stay safe and keep doing a great job.