Failure to Notify Victim of Stolen Vehicle Recovery

[phemmert]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Failure to Notify Victim of Stolen Vehicle Recovery
Thanks in advance for anyone's guidance and suggestions.

The situation is this: Motorcycle stolen in 2009, reported to a sheriffs department. Vehicle was recovered by a different law enforcement agency in a neighboring county in late 2012. The locating police department notified the original reporting agency (sheriff) via the a statewide stolen vehicle reporting system and placed the vehicle in commercial storage. The recovering police department did not notify me of the recovery, nor did the original reporting agency. I learned of the recovery from a District Attorney's office which sent me a form letter regarding possible restitution, but not referencing precisely what the crime was that entitled me to compensation. Subsequent to calling the DA's office, only then did I learn that the vehicle was recovered, approximately 35 days after the vehicle was stored.

The total storage cost was approximately $1,500. The recovering agency claims the original reporting agency (sheriff) should have notified me, but failed to do so. The sheriff's office, on the other hand, claims the recovering police department had the responsibility. California vehicle code contains language regarding "Police Reports" specifically states that the original reporting agency, once notified by the recovering agency, is required to make notification, in the case of stolen vehicle recovery.

What would possibly compel the sheriff's office to argue against both the Police Department, and California Code?

I have since filed a claim against the county - that was denied, no reason given.

I have a small claims court date next month against the county. I have also offered, via email, to convene a teleconference with all parties in an effort to resolve ahead of time - that was literally ignored. In that communication, I suggested that if a settlement isn't reached, I intend to ask for the original storage fee, airfare (I live out of state,) witness and subpoena fees, and incidentals. Is this too much to ask? Is silence in response to a request to settle in advance of the court date something to be expected?

My witness will be a representative from the recovering police department's office.

Any thoughts? Have I left any stones unturned, or am I barking up a wrong tree entirely?

 

[racer72]

Were you compensated for your loss when the bike was stolen?

 

[phemmert]

Were you compensated for your loss when the bike was stolen?

I wasn't because the bike was uninsured.

I don't think it's relevant whether I was compensated or not by an insurance company - this is a question of malfeasance of the part of government agency, after the theft. I was caught in the middle and had to pay excessively to retrieve the bike from storage, and the question for a judge (I think, anyway) is what agency is responsible.

 

[racer72]

I don't think it's relevant whether I was compensated or not by an insurance company

Wrong. If you were compensated for the loss, you would no longer own the motorcycle, the insurance company would. That is why my question was very relevant.

 

[CdwJava]

Vehicle was recovered by a different law enforcement agency in a neighboring county in late 2012. The locating police department notified the original reporting agency (sheriff) via the a statewide stolen vehicle reporting system and placed the vehicle in commercial storage. The recovering police department did not notify me of the recovery, nor did the original reporting agency. I learned of the recovery from a District Attorney's office which sent me a form letter regarding possible restitution, but not referencing precisely what the crime was that entitled me to compensation. Subsequent to calling the DA's office, only then did I learn that the vehicle was recovered, approximately 35 days after the vehicle was stored.

Had your address changed since the date of the theft?

The recovering agency would have sent you the required notice based upon the address on the vehicle registration. If you had changed your address since the stolen vehicle report, that would explain what happened.

The law generally requires that the recovering agency mail you notice after they have notified SVS. If the recovering agency did mail that notice to the address indicated on the registration or the stolen vehicle report, then they made the notice that is required by law. No one is required to hunt you down.

The total storage cost was approximately $1,500. The recovering agency claims the original reporting agency (sheriff) should have notified me, but failed to do so. The sheriff's office, on the other hand, claims the recovering police department had the responsibility. California vehicle code contains language regarding "Police Reports" specifically states that the original reporting agency, once notified by the recovering agency, is required to make notification, in the case of stolen vehicle recovery.

What law are you reading that says this???

I have since filed a claim against the county - that was denied, no reason given.

They do not have to provide a reason. You will have to cite the law that REQUIRES that they provide you proper notice.

My witness will be a representative from the recovering police department's office.

Since this is a civil matter, have you secured this officer's attendance by posting the money to pay for his overtime?

Any thoughts? Have I left any stones unturned, or am I barking up a wrong tree entirely?

You may be barking up the wrong tree.

I'm curious what CVC section you are hanging your hat on.

 

[phemmert]

Had your address changed since the date of the theft?

No

What law are you reading that says this???

See California Vehicle Code 10500 - Police Reports

10500. (a) Every peace officer, upon receiving a report based on
reliable information that any vehicle registered under this code has
been stolen, taken, or driven in violation of Section 10851, or that
a leased or rented vehicle has not been returned within five days
after its owner has made written demand for its return, by certified
or registered mail, following the expiration of the lease or rental
agreement, or that license plates for any vehicle have been lost or
stolen, shall, immediately after receiving that information, report
the information to the Department of Justice Stolen Vehicle System.
An officer, upon receiving information of the recovery of any vehicle
described in this subdivision, or of the recovery of plates which
have been previously reported as lost or stolen, shall immediately
report the fact of the recovery to the Department of Justice Stolen
Vehicle System. At the same time, the recovering officer shall advise
the Department of Justice Stolen Vehicle System and the original
reporting police agency of the location and condition of the vehicle
or license plates recovered. The original reporting police agency,
upon receipt of the information from the recovering officer, shall,
immediately attempt to notify the reporting party by telephone, if
the telephone number of the reporting party is available or readily
accessible, of the location and condition of the recovered vehicle.
If the reporting party's telephone number is unknown, or notification
attempts were unsuccessful, the original reporting police agency
shall notify the reporting party by placing, in the mail, a notice
providing the location and condition of the recovered vehicle. This
written notice shall be mailed within 24 hours of the original
reporting police agency's receipt of the information of the recovery
of the vehicle, excluding holidays and weekends.

Since this is a civil matter, have you secured this officer's attendance by posting the money to pay for his overtime?

Yes, $275

I believed, at first, that the recovering agency is obligated to notify victims. It only makes sense. In reality, while CVC 10500 applies, many jurisdictions, as a matter of courtesy, will make initial notification no matter what agency the theft was originally reported to. In this case, however, the police department is sticking by the law.

I also have proof that the Sheriff was indeed notified via CLETS, on the date of the recovery.

 

[phemmert]

Wrong. If you were compensated for the loss, you would no longer own the motorcycle, the insurance company would. That is why my question was very relevant.

Understood, then the insurance company would be faced with the same dilemma.

 

[CdwJava]

Have you availed yourself of the post-storage hearing allowed per VC 22850 et seq? The court may require that you exhaust all due process options before you will be permitted to seek restitution in civil court.

And, since you say you made a 10851 report to a Sheriff's office, do you live in an incorporated city that contracts to the Sheriff for law enforcement services? If in an unincorporated zone, then the 10851 report would have almost certainly been taken by the CHP. Do you have a copy of the original 10851 report that indicates the actual reporting agency and case number? Maybe even the ORI of the original reporting agency?

If all is as you say it is, then you may prevail in civil court. But, the court may still ask if you scheduled that post-storage hearing, first.

 

[phemmert]

Have you availed yourself of the post-storage hearing allowed per VC 22850 et seq? The court may require that you exhaust all due process options before you will be permitted to seek restitution in civil court.

And, since you say you made a 10851 report to a Sheriff's office, do you live in an incorporated city that contracts to the Sheriff for law enforcement services? If in an unincorporated zone, then the 10851 report would have almost certainly been taken by the CHP. Do you have a copy of the original 10851 report that indicates the actual reporting agency and case number? Maybe even the ORI of the original reporting agency?

If all is as you say it is, then you may prevail in civil court. But, the court may still ask if you scheduled that post-storage hearing, first.

Regarding the initial report and associated case number, I do possess that, as taken by a Sheriff from Madera County when the theft was discovered. The bike was actually stolen from private property located in the Sierra National Forest. There's no question who the original report taker was, and I have the documents to show that.

Regarding a post-storage hearing, it appears that this language applies to determine the validity of storage. Because the vehicle was stored as a result of theft recovery (and not anything I did as an owner that was deficient) I'm not convinced that a hearing was or is necessary; no one is disputing the validity of the storage. The disagreement turns on timely notification of the recovery itself. Good thought, however, and I'll keep this in mind and will be prepared to defend my position if this topic comes up.

As an aside, there were several vehicles stored as the result of a criminal investigation - mine was the only one that wasn't reported stolen locally to the Merced PD - all the owners of the other vehicles retrieved their property promptly, as they were properly notified IAW 10500.

I do wish the Merced PD would have taken the time to make the courtesy call, but they did not, so here I am, stuck with a relatively stout storage bill.

We'll see how it goes, and I appreciate your taking time to chime in - this is new territory for me.

 

[Zigner]

What is the value of the motorcycle (at the time of recovery?)

How much are you suing for?

 

[phemmert]

What is the value of the motorcycle (at the time of recovery?)

How much are you suing for?

The cost of storage ($1,460) plus out of pocket expenses to litigate in small claims. The bike is a 1971 Honda CT-70, we figure it's worth around $1,500 now. There was a decision to be made as to even bothering with it, but this motorcycle is an antique, and has lots of sentimental value. Needless to say we were surprised when it turned up in perfect condition.

 

[CdwJava]

The post storage hearing can also address the issues surrounding the town and notice. It's what I do for my agency, and I have had to authorize reimbursement for failure to provide proper notice. Whether the MCSD would hold a hearing in this matter, I can't say, but the court might want to see that you have tried. I bring that up simply because before a lawsuit can go forward, you have to have availed yourself of the due process available.

 

[phemmert]

The post storage hearing can also address the issues surrounding the town and notice. It's what I do for my agency, and I have had to authorize reimbursement for failure to provide proper notice. Whether the MCSD would hold a hearing in this matter, I can't say, but the court might want to see that you have tried. I bring that up simply because before a lawsuit can go forward, you have to have availed yourself of the due process available.

That's interesting what you do. All I can say for certain is that I had several conversations with both Madera Sheriff and Merced PD, where both entities pointed fingers at each other, with neither side willing to agree that that there was negligence. The question, too, is what jurisdiction would agree to a hearing, whose sole purpose would be to determine the validity/legality of a storage? On a side note, at one point the MCSD tried to point to CVC 22699, Removal of Abandoned Vehicles. That was quickly rebuked, as that's not applicable here.

Once I determined that 10500 governs correct notification, I filed a claim against Madera County, which was denied. The only way to appeal their finding is via small claims, so will see what happens on June 17th.

Again, thanks for your insight.

 

[CdwJava]

Let us know what the court decides. I'm curious what the court's take on the issue might be.

 

[Zigner]

I am curious as to how you came up with the value of the motorcycle.

You will not be able to recover more than the value of the motorcycle.