Help - Need Advise

[LawDawg]

I purchased several radios from a guy I met while bidding on e-bay. It was not an ebay sale, but a private side sell. The radio's were purchased near the end of March, first of April. Recently I obtained a position as a Reserve Police Officer. As a Reserve we must supply our own equiptment. I decided to see if the Radio's could be programed and something I could use as equiptment. I took the radio's several places to check them out, but no one could give me any information. I then contacted Motorola directly and found a Motorola dealership. I took the radios there and explained to them how I came to have them. I told them I wanted them checked out and programed if possible. One week later I found out the Radio's had been stolen from a local mall. The radio program company told me there was nothing I could do that the mall would pick up the radio's. This same mall is one that I worked at off and on as a Security Officer. I immediately went to the mall, and spoke to the Director and explained to him what had occured and where the radio's could be picked up at. I explained to him how long I had the radio's. He stated that he understood that it could have happened to anyone, and he was just sorry I was out the money. It has been determined that one of the radio's was taken during a time when I was not employed. However, the sale was a cash sale, and I met the guy at another local mall to pick them up. My department has put off hiring me full time, until such time the mall where the radio's were taken decides if they are going to prosecute. Can they prosecute me for purchasing the radio's if I did know they were stolen?

 

[calatty]

Knowledge that the property was stolen is an element of the crime of receiving stolen property. The DA can charge you with receiving stolen property, but the question is whether he can prove you had knowledge. Your conduct indicates that you did not have knowledge.

 

[Toniree]

Sorry

I beg to differ. The assumption that the radios were stolen falls under reasonable assumption. Scenerio: If this was a radio that was obviously used and the assumption that it was the guys personal radio that he decided to sell (which is logical), then no, there would be no reason to assume they were stolen. If the radios were brand new, still in their original wrapping and you brought it from a guy in an alley for cash, with no receipt or anything, the logical assumption would be that they are stolen. The fact that someone is selling side radios for cash and they are not a retail dealer, then the courts would look at it as "you should have known they were stolen".

If this is the case, the department store can't press charges against you because they can not prove that you stole them from the store. The DA, on the other hand, can press charges for receiving stolen property simply because you "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" that they were stolen.

Is my second scenerio more true than the first one?