Cop Acquitted of Theft

Despite video evidence, and what can only be described as an admission of guilt from the officer’s attorney:

“The card didn’t have someone’s name on it or an amount on it,” said Rickel. “He wasn’t trying to deprive anyone of anything. He picked it up, and when he went to the store he used it. The jury agreed that intent to steal from the homeowner was never established.”

So, if I “find” money in your house – I can take it and use it, because it doesn’t have “someone’s name on it”? Despite the fact that the card was “found” during a drug raid, constructive ownership requires that we identify the card as the property of the homeowner on whom the raid was served. It may or may not have been stolen property – it may or may not have rightly belonged to the homeowner or tenant – but bad title to property does not become good title simply by conveyance or acquisition.

He can claim that he didn’t “intend” to steal from anyone, but on every principle of law and reason, the card (and any value it contained) was stolen the second he put it in his pocket, the use, or attempted use of the card is entirely irrelevant. If he did not “intend” to steal it, he shouldn’t have taken it. If he took it by accident, he shouldn’t have “went to the store and used it,” but rather returned it.

The officer is now suing to get his job back. Charming.

I’m not sure how I missed this story, considering it was noted in the Detroit Free Press, and the Home Depot where the transaction occurred is likely the same Home Depot that is only a few blocks from my house. Thanks to Radley Balko for the tip. To protect and serve, indeed.