Stolen but not reported

[not2cleverRed]

I get what you're saying. And he was able to start the truck with a screwdriver. The ignition was ripped apart when I saw it at the impound lot. And I did try to mitigate the damages. I was on the phone with the tow yard. I went there to try to get them to reduce the amount. I had to figure out what happened to my truck on my own. No one told me what happened to it. So by the time I tracked it down on a Friday, and scraped together enough loans to be able to pay to get it out, the place closed and wouldn't let me do so. And it accrued more fees over the following 3 day weekend and by the following business day I could no longer afford the amount. As it had raised another couple hundred dollars. So yes I did do my very best to mitigate damages. I didn't just say "oh well to heck with it" in fact the tow yard was very confrontational and rude and unhelpful and treated me as if I did something wrong. Not like a victim. However I haven't paid them a cent. And you're right. It was his actions that lead to the damages in the first place.

Okay, given this, I agree that yes, you should have reported it stolen.

Your initial post was kind of vagueish. Believe it or not, there are actually people who loan their cars - as in, give someone the keys, and get into a similar situation.

If you did not give this person a key to your car, and did not give him permission to drive it, then it would not be a "false report" to report it as stolen.

At this point, you have nothing to lose in reporting it as stolen, since you already lost the car. Won't get your truck back, won't get you money for another truck. But it might help the police get him eventually for other vehicles he does the same thing to.

In the future, when you can't find your vehicle, report it stolen. Less work for you.

Also, worry less about "causing trouble" for anyone who clearly doesn't give a hoot about respecting you.

 

[CdwJava]

The problem he will have in reporting it "stolen" is that he appeared to have negotiated compensation from the so-called "friend" and the friend duped him. That will tend to make this a civil issue and discourage a prosecutor from pursuing it. It is possible that the police will not even take this report once the story reaches the part where he tried to arrange for compensation. He can certainly call the police and see what they may be able to do, but, the OP should not get his hopes up since making a case for a stolen vehicle at this point may be difficult, if not impossible. But, who knows? if the police take the report and the suspect admits to taking the car without permission, he may get lucky.

 

[not2cleverRed]

The problem he will have in reporting it "stolen" is that he appeared to have negotiated compensation from the so-called "friend" and the friend duped him. That will tend to make this a civil issue and discourage a prosecutor from pursuing it. It is possible that the police will not even take this report once the story reaches the part where he tried to arrange for compensation. He can certainly call the police and see what they may be able to do, but, the OP should not get his hopes up since making a case for a stolen vehicle at this point may be difficult, if not impossible. But, who knows? if the police take the report and the suspect admits to taking the car without permission, he may get lucky.

Oh, I don't think the prosecutor will do anything with it... unless and until the "friend" steals another car. It's good for the police to have some sort of record of a pattern.

Of course, the local police perhaps already know the friend's tendencies - which is why they pulled him over in the first place.

 

[CdwJava]

It's just that some agencies will not even take a report that is not criminal in nature, or directly related to one of the noncriminal functions they might have to address (mental health, collisions, etc.). And I don't know about in the OP's state, but out here we couldn't use such a report for much of anything - even for future offenses. Prior convictions, sure. A report that was arguably a civil issue? I suspect it would never get a chance to be presented. But, that being said, it doesn't hurt the OP to speak to the police and see what they have to say. As I said, the guy might confess, and the DA may feel emboldened to give it a go with that.

 

[quincy]

I would think that the police would already know that the friend was not driving his own car and that it was (potentially) a stolen vehicle. The vehicle was not registered to him and the ignition was messed up.

I would also think that the police would contact the registered owner of the vehicle as a routine matter, this whether the vehicle was officially reported as stolen or not, this at the time of impound.

Karma.chris said he had to figure out what happened to his truck on his own. That, to me, seems very odd.

 

[CdwJava]

When the police contacted the friend and found the car was not registered to him, chances are he stated that it belonged to his friend and he borrowed it. Further, if the friend had borrowed the car on prior occasions, it would make the argument for auto theft even harder to prove.

In general, the police have no easy way of contacting a registered owner of a vehicle when they make contact with its occupants on the street. Unlike TV, we cannot enter a name into a computer and get a phone number. If the R/O was contacted by the specific agency and a phone number was entered into a local department or county accessible database (not common unless arrested or a victim/witness), MAYBE they would consider making a call. Though, they are not legally obligated to make that contact by phone, and legally obligated to do so only by mail after the impound (even in WA). Now, if the car had a screwdriver sticking out of the ignition, or a tampered ignition, chances are very good that they attempted some form of contact with the R/O. If they discovered he was in custody, they could have contacted the jail in question and asked for them to ask the inmate. However, if the contact was made by officers outside the jurisdiction where the OP was being held, then discovering the OP was in custody could be nearly impossible.

I suspect karma.chris discovered his truck had been impounded when he got home and found the notice(s) in the mail. Since the law generally requires notice by mail, and assuming that karma.chris had kept his address up-to-date with the WA DMV, then that is how he would have been notified.

 

[Litigator22]

I'm sorry, I appreciate your answer . . . I'm not fluent on the terminology. So would you do me a favor and reduce your response to layman for me?

Well now, take your choice:

Would you prefer to leave this site erroneously believing that the guy that stole your truck, etc., etc., is only accountable for the towing and impound charges accruing up to the date you were released from jail? In other words that it was your responsibility once released do settle with the towing company an avoid the auction sale.

Or would it be better to be more accurately informed: (1) That your period of incarceration is not a material factor; (2) that the thief is legally responsible for all your losses (including the value of the truck) that are the proximate result of (i. e., directly flowing from) his criminal behavior; (3) LESS any such accruing losses that you had the financial ability and reasonable opportunity to avoid; (4) that if sued for the whole smear there is a legal onus on the thief to defend by alleging and proving by a preponderance of the evidence that you had both the opportunity and financial ability (without undue financial hardship) to avoid any such losses.

If you remain uncertain as to why the above, please ask.

As the revered common man philosopher Will Rogers observed: "It's not what we don't know that hurts. Its what we know that ain't so."

 

[Karma.chris]

I suggest you start with your damages (e.g., value of car). Support that. Then gather evidence to prove it was your friend whose actions resulted in your losses (e.g., police report, tow-related costs).

Or find an attorney in your area to assist you.

Good luck.

What is the time frame in which I can take him to court? This happened at the end of last summer. Into early fall

 

[Karma.chris]

When the police contacted the friend and found the car was not registered to him, chances are he stated that it belonged to his friend and he borrowed it. Further, if the friend had borrowed the car on prior occasions, it would make the argument for auto theft even harder to prove.

In general, the police have no easy way of contacting a registered owner of a vehicle when they make contact with its occupants on the street. Unlike TV, we cannot enter a name into a computer and get a phone number. If the R/O was contacted by the specific agency and a phone number was entered into a local department or county accessible database (not common unless arrested or a victim/witness), MAYBE they would consider making a call. Though, they are not legally obligated to make that contact by phone, and legally obligated to do so only by mail after the impound (even in WA). Now, if the car had a screwdriver sticking out of the ignition, or a tampered ignition, chances are very good that they attempted some form of contact with the R/O. If they discovered he was in custody, they could have contacted the jail in question and asked for them to ask the inmate. However, if the contact was made by officers outside the jurisdiction where the OP was being held, then discovering the OP was in custody could be nearly impossible.

I suspect karma.chris discovered his truck had been impounded when he got home and found the notice(s) in the mail. Since the law generally requires notice by mail, and assuming that karma.chris had kept his address up-to-date with the WA DMV, then that is how he would have been notified.

Also, he has never ever not once been loaned the truck, nor was he ever given permission to use or drive the truck. Not at any point since we have been associated.i did not even have knowledge of him being in possession of it until after he had been driving it for several days and my girlfriend advised me that he refused to give it back and he stated that he wasn't gonna deal with her anymore and to have me call him when I was released. And he stopped replying to her texts or calls

 

[quincy]

What is the time frame in which I can take him to court? This happened at the end of last summer. Into early fall

The statute of limitations (the time within which you must file a lawsuit) is three years.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Also, he has never ever not once been loaned the truck, nor was he ever given permission to use or drive the truck. Not at any point since we have been associated.i did not even have knowledge of him being in possession of it until after he had been driving it for several days and my girlfriend advised me that he refused to give it back and he stated that he wasn't gonna deal with her anymore and to have me call him when I was released. And he stopped replying to her texts or calls

Yeah, but the fact is that you didn't report it at the time, nor did your gf... Which makes you come across as less credible.

 

[justalayman]

So when the guy said he wasn’t going to give it back and you were made aware of the situation, you could either treat it like it had been stolen or you could treat it like you did which as tacit approval of his use.

The moment you discovered the truck was being used by the guy and you refused to treat it like it was stolen, it became a loaner.

I’m not getting the “he refused to deal with your gf about this and you would have to call him once you were released”. Is that how you speak with people that steal your things? Why would he want to talk to you if he stole your truck? Why would you want to talk with him and not simply let the police handle things?

 

[Litigator22]

. . . The moment you discovered the truck was being used by the guy and you refused to treat it like it was stolen, it became a loaner. . .

It is one thing to say that the subsequent conduct of the OP tends to repudiate the taking of the truck as seen as a criminal act. (Particularly from a law enforcement perspective.)

Yet quite another - in fact an unwarranted stretch IMO - to say that his subsequent conduct is tantamount to a permissive use or a loaning of the truck.

Otherwise why would in not follow (from your "permissive use theory") that the OP would be personally liable for injury to person or property occasioned by the supposed lendee's negligent use of the vehicle?

 

[justalayman]

It is one thing to say that the subsequent conduct of the OP tends to repudiate the taking of the truck as seen as a criminal act. (Particularly from a law enforcement perspective.)

Yet quite another - in fact an unwarranted stretch IMO - to say that his subsequent conduct is tantamount to a permissive use or a loaning of the truck.

Otherwise why would in not follow (from your "permissive use theory") that the OP would be personally liable for injury to person or property occasioned by the supposed lendee's negligent use of the vehicle?

Tacit permission is tacit permission. He knew the guy had the truck. Op was satisfied with; gf says you need to call him yourself after you’re out of jail. That was a result of a failure of the discussions the girlfriend had with the guy and the guy saying he wouldn’t return the truck. Op was apparently ok with allowing the continued use during that interval.

Failure to act at that point is tacit permission.


There is no purpose in arguing op is or isn’t liable for damages caused during the period in question. It is not part of the equation and in the end, maybe he would be if it went to court.



I had also missed something in the original post. Op stated the person using the trruck would “make it right”. That converted it from a theft issue to permissive with a negotiation to settle the debt. You don’t negotiate with thieves to make things right.

 

[not2cleverRed]

It is one thing to say that the subsequent conduct of the OP tends to repudiate the taking of the truck as seen as a criminal act. (Particularly from a law enforcement perspective.)

Yet quite another - in fact an unwarranted stretch IMO - to say that his subsequent conduct is tantamount to a permissive use or a loaning of the truck.

Otherwise why would in not follow (from your "permissive use theory") that the OP would be personally liable for injury to person or property occasioned by the supposed lendee's negligent use of the vehicle?

Lit22, per OP's first post: I was stupid and didn't report the truck stolen at the time because the guy said he would make it right and I didn't want to get him in trouble. (I thought he was a friend) Can I still report it stolen?

Sounds pretty permissive to me.

But then, we live on different planets.