• Car in accident, sold multiple times, and subsequently impounded

    From Rich Wales@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 10 21:38:31 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to Rich Wales on Sun Jul 11 06:49:27 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Roy on Sun Jul 11 07:25:45 2021
    "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?

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Anderson@21:1/5 to Rick on Mon Jul 12 10:52:03 2021
    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."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Mike Anderson on Wed Jul 14 07:15:47 2021
    "Mike Anderson" wrote in message news:schvdd$te0$1@dont-email.me...

    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.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to Rick on Wed Jul 14 08:24:29 2021
    On 7/14/2021 7:15 AM, Rick wrote:

    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.

    --

    It would have to be an exceptional case. Many states limit the time to
    30 days or less and don't include any compensation.

    It even gets more complex if there is a loan on the vehicle.

    One could sue under the 5th amendment.

    Here is an interesting article on vehicle impoundment laws

    https://norrismclaughlin.com/articles/due-process-vehicle-impound/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Rick on Wed Jul 14 12:53:34 2021
    "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
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Wed Jul 14 15:37:53 2021
    On 7/14/2021 12:53 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
    "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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Roy on Wed Jul 14 21:07:42 2021
    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.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Thu Jul 15 05:56:03 2021
    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 ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 15 08:32:36 2021
    On 7/15/2021 5:56 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
    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 ?


    The terminology can be important. A "taking" could be a federal case
    for violation of the 5th amendment. Anything else is probably a civil
    case in state court.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)