This question relates to an episode of "Forensic Files" ("Capitol Crimes", first aired in 2006). The events in question took place in Pennsylvania (where a crime occurred) and New York (where a car involved in the crime was resold by a used-car dealer).
After getting into a hit-and-run accident that resulted in a death, the car owner had his car repaired, then returned it to a leasing agency, who sold it at auction to a used-car dealer, who in turn sold it to someone else.charges related to the hit-and-run.)
In the course of time, Pennsylvania investigators found the vehicle had been involved in the hit-and-run, and after tracking it down to its new owner, they impounded it as evidence. (The earlier owner of the car was subsequently convicted of various
My question is: In general, what recourse (if any) would the subsequent owner of the vehicle have here? The car had gone through multiple hands, and there was never any suggestion that the subsequent owner was involved in or even aware of the hit-and-run. Would anyone at all have any responsibility to reimburse the unwitting subsequent owner for the loss of a vehicle which he had purchased in good faith? Or would he be simply, flatly out of luck?
Rich Wales, richw@richw.org
On 7/10/2021 9:38 PM, Rich Wales wrote:
This question relates to an episode of "Forensic Files" ("Capitol
Crimes", first aired in 2006). The events in question took place in
Pennsylvania (where a crime occurred) and New York (where a car involved
in the crime was resold by a used-car dealer).
After getting into a hit-and-run accident that resulted in a death, the
car owner had his car repaired, then returned it to a leasing agency, who
sold it at auction to a used-car dealer, who in turn sold it to someone
else.
In the course of time, Pennsylvania investigators found the vehicle had
been involved in the hit-and-run, and after tracking it down to its new
owner, they impounded it as evidence. (The earlier owner of the car was
subsequently convicted of various charges related to the hit-and-run.)
My question is: In general, what recourse (if any) would the subsequent
owner of the vehicle have here? The car had gone through multiple hands,
and there was never any suggestion that the subsequent owner was involved
in or even aware of the hit-and-run. Would anyone at all have any
responsibility to reimburse the unwitting subsequent owner for the loss
of a vehicle which he had purchased in good faith? Or would he be
simply, flatly out of luck?
Rich Wales, richw@richw.org
IANAL.
If the police impound/seize something as evidence then it usually returned. >In this case the vehicle's title does not seem to be in doubt.
They question would be when would the car be returned. It would be
returned when they are done with the vehicle. That could be after the
trial. It could be earlier if the defense can inspect the vehicle. Once
both sides are complete with their examinations, the vehicle could be >released
"Roy" wrote in message news:scesrv$tot$1@dont-email.me...
On 7/10/2021 9:38 PM, Rich Wales wrote:
This question relates to an episode of "Forensic Files" ("Capitol
Crimes", first aired in 2006). The events in question took place in
Pennsylvania (where a crime occurred) and New York (where a car
involved in the crime was resold by a used-car dealer).
After getting into a hit-and-run accident that resulted in a death,
the car owner had his car repaired, then returned it to a leasing
agency, who sold it at auction to a used-car dealer, who in turn sold
it to someone else.
In the course of time, Pennsylvania investigators found the vehicle
had been involved in the hit-and-run, and after tracking it down to
its new owner, they impounded it as evidence. (The earlier owner of
the car was subsequently convicted of various charges related to the
hit-and-run.)
My question is: In general, what recourse (if any) would the
subsequent owner of the vehicle have here? The car had gone through
multiple hands, and there was never any suggestion that the
subsequent owner was involved in or even aware of the hit-and-run.
Would anyone at all have any responsibility to reimburse the
unwitting subsequent owner for the loss of a vehicle which he had
purchased in good faith? Or would he be simply, flatly out of luck?
Rich Wales, richw@richw.org
IANAL.
If the police impound/seize something as evidence then it usually
returned. In this case the vehicle's title does not seem to be in doubt.
They question would be when would the car be returned. It would be
returned when they are done with the vehicle. That could be after the
trial. It could be earlier if the defense can inspect the vehicle.
Once both sides are complete with their examinations, the vehicle
could be released
Meanwhile, of course, the owner is without use of his car. Will the
courts normally pay him anything for loss of use, not to mention the awkwardness and embarrassment of having the car impounded perhaps while
he is at work or with a client, etc.
Also, don't most states require disclosure of prior accident history
when you purchase a used car? Does that include disclosure that the car
was used in the commission of a crime? If the used car lot who sold the
car to the present owner failed to disclose information about its
history, I wonder what kind of claim he might have against that dealership?
On 7/11/2021 10:25 AM, Rick wrote:
"Roy" wrote in message news:scesrv$tot$1@dont-email.me...
On 7/10/2021 9:38 PM, Rich Wales wrote:
This question relates to an episode of "Forensic Files" ("Capitol
Crimes", first aired in 2006). The events in question took place in
Pennsylvania (where a crime occurred) and New York (where a car
involved in the crime was resold by a used-car dealer).
After getting into a hit-and-run accident that resulted in a death, the >>>> car owner had his car repaired, then returned it to a leasing agency,
who sold it at auction to a used-car dealer, who in turn sold it to
someone else.
In the course of time, Pennsylvania investigators found the vehicle had >>>> been involved in the hit-and-run, and after tracking it down to its new >>>> owner, they impounded it as evidence. (The earlier owner of the car
was subsequently convicted of various charges related to the
hit-and-run.)
My question is: In general, what recourse (if any) would the
subsequent owner of the vehicle have here? The car had gone through
multiple hands, and there was never any suggestion that the subsequent >>>> owner was involved in or even aware of the hit-and-run. Would anyone
at all have any responsibility to reimburse the unwitting subsequent
owner for the loss of a vehicle which he had purchased in good faith?
Or would he be simply, flatly out of luck?
Rich Wales, richw@richw.org
IANAL.
If the police impound/seize something as evidence then it usually
returned. In this case the vehicle's title does not seem to be in doubt. >>>
They question would be when would the car be returned. It would be
returned when they are done with the vehicle. That could be after the
trial. It could be earlier if the defense can inspect the vehicle. Once >>> both sides are complete with their examinations, the vehicle could be
released
Meanwhile, of course, the owner is without use of his car. Will the
courts normally pay him anything for loss of use, not to mention the
awkwardness and embarrassment of having the car impounded perhaps while
he is at work or with a client, etc.
Also, don't most states require disclosure of prior accident history when
you purchase a used car? Does that include disclosure that the car was
used in the commission of a crime? If the used car lot who sold the car
to the present owner failed to disclose information about its history, I
wonder what kind of claim he might have against that dealership?
"After getting into a hit-and-run accident that resulted in a death, the
car owner had his car repaired, then returned it to a leasing agency, who >sold it at auction to a used-car dealer, who in turn sold it to someone >else."
Where did anyone, other than the person leasing the car, know it was "used
in the commission of a crime?" The used car lot may have disclosed it'd
been in an accident but if the original leasee told them "I ran into a
tree" or a deer or maybe didn't even tell them at all but had the car >repaired on his own and thus never reported it to ANYONE other than the car >shop, who wouldn't have cared one bit as to how it was damaged as long as
he was paying for it. If you get shot, the hospital has to report the
details to the police but if you break a leg, they don't. The car repair >probably doesn't have to report damage to a car unless there's "blood and >guts and other assorted gore."
Those are valid points. My other question still stands, which is
whether the courts would normally compensate the new owner for loss of
use while the car is impounded.
--
Those are valid points. My other question still stands, which is
whether the courts would normally compensate the new owner for
loss of use while the car is impounded.
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:scmqr7$1r96$1@gioia.aioe.org:
Those are valid points. My other question still stands, which is
whether the courts would normally compensate the new owner for
loss of use while the car is impounded.
The courts won't give him anything unless he asks for it, and specifies someone who is supposed to pay him for his loss. Then he has to have
legal cause why the person he identifies is the one who should
compensate him.
If the owner gets his car back, there will likely be no compensation.
He can sue the person involved in the hit and run in case there were
actual damages resulting from the temporary taking of the car.
If he never gets his car back, that's what insurance is for.
Stu, Since it is the government holding the car, wouldn't the fifth
amendment apply and prohibit a taking without compensation?
Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:
Stu, Since it is the government holding the car, wouldn't the fifth
amendment apply and prohibit a taking without compensation?
This isn't my area of expertise, but they aren't taking it - it's more
like they're borrowing it. On the other hand even a temporary or
partial "taking" of real estate is compensible. If they take it for
purpose of investigating and prosecuting a crime, I'd guess that would
be "public use." So I suppose so.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:07:42 -0700, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:
Stu, Since it is the government holding the car, wouldn't the fifth
amendment apply and prohibit a taking without compensation?
This isn't my area of expertise, but they aren't taking it - it's more
like they're borrowing it. On the other hand even a temporary or
partial "taking" of real estate is compensible. If they take it for
purpose of investigating and prosecuting a crime, I'd guess that would
be "public use." So I suppose so.
It doesn't matter what you call it if it causes a quantifiable loss ?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 379 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:59:06 |
| Calls: | 8,141 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,085 |
| Messages: | 5,857,792 |