The story below is about the police hunting people that picked money
off the road after it fell out of a security van.  They say it's
theft.  Why is that?


Police hunt drivers who took money that fell out of armoured van 

The FBI and New Orleans police are looking for people who took bags of
money that fell out of the back of an armoured van.

The Intertrust Armored Services vehicle had exited a motorway when its
back door opened and the money dropped out.

The driver didn't realise at first what had happened and continued his
journey.

Several people who brought their cars to a halt, jumped out and took
several bags of money are accused of theft.

Authorities did not say how much money was in each bag, how many bags
were stolen or why the back door of the vehicle opened.

FBI spokeswoman Sheila Thorne said: "All of it is still under
investigation.

We are doing what we can to put the word out. This is federally
insured money."

The Times-Picayune says Intertrust Armored Car Services is offering a
reward of up to $10,000 (about £6,500) for information leading to the
recovery of the money or the persons who took it.

Police have descriptions of two men who jumped out of a car and began
grabbing bags of cash.

Story filed: 20:30 Wednesday 3rd July 2002

Source: http://www.ananova.com/News/story/sm_621535.html

Hello spurious-ga,

I should emphasize the disclaimer at the bottom of this page, which
states that answers and comments on Google Answers are general
information, and not intended to substitute for informed professional
legal advice.  In other words, this is only the results of my
research, not a legal opinion.

I have found provisions of Louisiana and federal law that seem to
indicate that this is theft.  First, the Louisiana Revised Statutes
state:

"Theft is the misappropriation or taking of anything of value which
belongs to another, ... without the consent of the other to the
misappropriation or taking ....  An intent to deprive the other
permanently of whatever may be the subject of the misappropriation or
taking is essential."

"RS 14:67"
Louisiana State Legislature
http://www.legis.state.la.us/tsrs/tsrs.asp?lawbody=RS&title=14&section=67

The way I see it, the owners of the money and the people driving the
truck certainly didn't consent to the taking of that money,
permanently.

A federal criminal statute applies to a person who

"takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any property
or money or any other thing of value ... belonging to, or in the care,
custody, control, management, or possession of any bank, credit union,
or any savings and loan association".

"Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2113"
FindLaw
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/103/sections/section%5F2113.html

I assume this is why the Feds are involved.  The reference in the
article to "federally insured money" seems to explain their interest.

- justaskscott-ga


Search strategy -

Searched Louisiana laws for the term:

theft

Searched U.S. criminal statutes for the term:

insured [since that was the word that seemed important in the article]

---

Request for Answer Clarification by spurious-ga on 25 Jun 2003 00:24 PDT

Sorry for posting a clarification on a $2 question... Just to confirm,
if something falls off the back of a truck (literally) or is somehow
misplaced, accidentally discarded, comes loose, or is otherwise lost,
don't pick it up because you'd be stealing it?

---

Clarification of Answer by justaskscott-ga on 25 Jun 2003 07:36 PDT

My feeling is that if a bag of money falls off a truck, you're risking
trouble if you take it and don't try to return it.  In general, I'd
say that taking something that doesn't belong to you and seems to
belong to someone else could bring you trouble, unless you try to
return it.

What answerfinder-ga describes as the law in the UK sounds reasonable
as a general rule of conduct.

Thanks!

For your interest, in the UK the following applies.
Theft is defined as "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly
appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it"
http://www.peterjepson.com/law/theft%20act%201968.htm

The important point here is dishonestly. The finder would have to make
reasonable steps to discover the owner of the property before they can
claim ownership. The steps in this case would be to report the finding
to the police. If the money was not claimed within 3 months, it would
be handed back to the finder.
answerfinder-ga

Thanks answerfinder-ga, you've answered my clarification.

I'd also point out that in the U.S. intent is an important part of
criminal law. If you were just walking along the street and saw a
coin, you would have no reason to believe it wasn't abandoned, and no
reasonable prosecutor would charge you for pocketing it. But bags of
money worth thousands of dollars almost certainly weren't abandoned,
and any reasonable person would believe the money rightfully belongs
to someone else.  The difference is not just one of the amount of
money but the intent of the person who finds it.