Matchstickx
Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Ohio
A friend of mine came to see me. He did not have a car and got a ride from an acquaintance. They were pulled over because they car they were in was reported as stolen. My friend was driving because he knew the directions and it was easier that way. They were both arrested for receiving stolen property.
They got out on bail, and the guy who provided the car located the man who owned the vehicle. It had been lent to him by the man's girlfriend at the time, and when she split, she would not tell him who she lent the car to but it was a friend of his. So, he reported it stolen. Once he found out who had it, he did not wish it to be reported stolen any more.
The court, when queried by the police, who I called to ask ow to "un-report it stolen", indicated only the prosecutor can drop the charges and after calling the court to check, said they would not accept a sworn affidavit from the car owner made at the police station where it was reported stolen indicating it was a misunderstanding rather than a theft. They said the owner of the car would need to appear in court with those accused, a burden since the owner lives out of state, where the trip originated and it seems unusual to require the person who reported the crime to have to go to court to clear any defendents charged when it's clear, everybody involved wishes to end the matter and will swear in front of officials in their locality to that affect, and that the original report was in error.
Doesn't the state have to prove the defendents KNOWINGLY received stolen property? It was not reported stolen until many days after is was in posession. I am concerned because the individuals involved have lengthy criminal backgrounds that might lead one to suspect they are lying, but since they were coming to see and do work for me, I know that is not the case, at least for the individual that just wanted a ride and drove the car.
A friend of mine came to see me. He did not have a car and got a ride from an acquaintance. They were pulled over because they car they were in was reported as stolen. My friend was driving because he knew the directions and it was easier that way. They were both arrested for receiving stolen property.
They got out on bail, and the guy who provided the car located the man who owned the vehicle. It had been lent to him by the man's girlfriend at the time, and when she split, she would not tell him who she lent the car to but it was a friend of his. So, he reported it stolen. Once he found out who had it, he did not wish it to be reported stolen any more.
The court, when queried by the police, who I called to ask ow to "un-report it stolen", indicated only the prosecutor can drop the charges and after calling the court to check, said they would not accept a sworn affidavit from the car owner made at the police station where it was reported stolen indicating it was a misunderstanding rather than a theft. They said the owner of the car would need to appear in court with those accused, a burden since the owner lives out of state, where the trip originated and it seems unusual to require the person who reported the crime to have to go to court to clear any defendents charged when it's clear, everybody involved wishes to end the matter and will swear in front of officials in their locality to that affect, and that the original report was in error.
Doesn't the state have to prove the defendents KNOWINGLY received stolen property? It was not reported stolen until many days after is was in posession. I am concerned because the individuals involved have lengthy criminal backgrounds that might lead one to suspect they are lying, but since they were coming to see and do work for me, I know that is not the case, at least for the individual that just wanted a ride and drove the car.
Last edited: