# Judge Judy let dog pick owner?



## Anubis_Star

Woman bought her 10 year old son a puppy. Puppy got out when it was 5 months old, neighbor found the dog. The next day he was advised that the owner had posted on craigslist as well as filed reports with the humane society, but because the collar was "tight" on the dog he felt they didn't deserve the dog. After 2 months of just keeping the dog, his brother's girlfriend informed the rightful owners, and they ended up in Judge Judy's courtroom to get the dog back. 

Judge Judy felt since the dog had been with him for the last two months it might be more bonded to him, so she let the dog pick. The poor little boy (sobbing, by the way) stood on one end of the courtroom, and the guy stood on the other end. The dog was obviously more bonded with the man that had taken the dog for the last 2 months. 

Judge Judy sat the kid down, talked to him real nice, and then brought out a little puppy she had just bought (some long haired little thing haha), and explained real nicely to the kid that taking the dog away from them might be mean to the dog who was already bonded through no fault of it's own. And if he wanted a puppy like that or any other puppy, the guy was going to pay for it. And she ordered the guy to pay them 2500$ for a new puppy, but that he didn't have to give the dog back (the lawsuit was either for the dog back or 2500$)

Your thoughts on this? I feel really bad for the kid. He should of given the dog back, two months the dog will bond again. The poor kid and his mother were sobbing.


----------



## Jax08

Judge Judy messed up. What a horrifying precedent.


----------



## Sawwahbear

I donno, if it took them 2 months before they tried to get there dog, and they were willing to take the money, they couldnt have wanted it that bad. 
I do feel bad for the kid because it wasnt his fault, but maybe now he will keep a better eye on his pet, and not put the collars on so tight!


----------



## Jax08

It didn't take them two months to look for their dog. The started looking that day. It took two months for the neighbors to come clean on stealing the dog. Because when you take something that does not belong to you and you know the owner is looking, that is stealing.


----------



## hunterisgreat

Jax08 said:


> Judge Judy messed up. What a horrifying precedent.


I'm not sure how much precedent is set lol. I don't see any Justices referencing any Judge Judy episodes in any future case, but who knows these days


----------



## Jax08

excuse me for using the wrong word. why don't you pick the proper one


----------



## Sawwahbear

Jax08 said:


> It didn't take them two months to look for their dog. The started looking that day. It took two months for the neighbors to come clean on stealing the dog. Because when you take something that does not belong to you and you know the owner is looking, that is stealing.


oh, I misread that.

well, they still went to a TV judge instead of a serious one. They must have known what they were getting into.


----------



## gsdraven

I agree with Michelle. Judge Judy messed up. Although I do like that she made him pay for the dog he stole. 

Collar too tight? Really?!


----------



## Anubis_Star

Sawwahbear said:


> I donno, if it took them 2 months before they tried to get there dog, and they were willing to take the money, they couldnt have wanted it that bad.
> I do feel bad for the kid because it wasnt his fault, but maybe now he will keep a better eye on his pet, and not put the collars on so tight!


The owners didn't know the man had the dog. He had found it one block from where their house was. When they discovered the dog was gone they searched the neighborhood, posted on craigslist, and filed a report with animal control and the humane society. The day after it ran away, the man's brother's girlfriend saw the craigslist ad and told him "Hey, I think you have these people's dog." He SAID he went to their house two times (both times when they weren't home), but because they didn't answer the door he never gave them the dog back. He never tried to call them, and he said he couldn't afford the internet so he couldn't check craigslist. It wasn't until 2 months later and the brother's girlfriend found out he hadn't returned the dog, that she contacted the real owners to tell them "Hey, I know who has your dog".


----------



## angelas

I haven't seen today's episodes yet (not 4pm in Seattle yet) however I am surprised by this. In a previous episode there was the same type of scenario. Dog got loose, was found, owners posted signs and reported to the HS without luck. Then one day four months or so later the owner's sister is walking through a parking lot and sees the dog in a car. The owners sues for the dog back and *cough* the thief sues the owner for harassment and vet bills. The owner did get the dog back but he did have to pay the vet bills.


----------



## Anubis_Star

A PROPER fitting collar only needs to be loose enough to allow two fingers to slip under it. A collar that tight feels TOO tight to most owners, and most people put a collar on that is 10x too loose, allowing it to easily slip over the dog's head and off the dog. Drive me nuts when people drag their scared dog into the clinic, have no control over it, and then it's slipping out of their collar and running around the place. So I will not take the word of a guy that steals puppies that the collar was indeed "too tight".


----------



## msvette2u

I don't know. I've seen plenty of puppies in the clinic and in rescue with collars embedded because owners got the pup, tossed it out back with a collar on (or harness, seen that too), and forgot to check it. Puppies grow fast!
What kind of dog was this?


----------



## Anubis_Star

msvette2u said:


> I don't know. I've seen plenty of puppies in the clinic and in rescue with collars embedded because owners got the pup, tossed it out back with a collar on (or harness, seen that too), and forgot to check it. Puppies grow fast!
> What kind of dog was this?


Oh yes, I agree with you. However, I think in THIS case that is a total BS story. The guy DID take the dog to the vet for vaccines, but there was no report of an embedded collar or signs of an embedded collar. It looked like some kind of jack russel/collie mix? Small-medium (probably ~30lb), timid dog. Actually one of my coworkers has a dog that looks a lot like it. It looks like they had purchased it from a pet shop, I'm not sure.

Here is her dog that looked like the dog in the show.


----------



## selzer

I think Judge Judy screwed up. But I think you have to agree to dismiss your case and go with whatever she comes up with if you are on there. I don't think I would want to go with a TV personality rather than a judge who should look at the facts and ownership of property laws. Hindsight is 20/20 they say. 

Poor kid. It really was the wrong lesson to teach. She was putting what SHE thought the puppy's needs were above the law. Yes a puppy is going to go to a guy that he has known for two months over a kid. If the kid hat the dog for 5 years, and the guy had the dog for 2 months it might be a different story. But we are talking about a puppy here, and puppies are pretty adaptable. An adult dog can be rehomed without too much problem. A seven month old puppy would have done just fine if she would have awarded the dog back to the original owners. 

What a nutcase (Judge Judy)! 

Uhg. 

Folks, keep your dogs safe. There are weirdows out there that will steal them out of your yard, there are judges out there that will give ownership of a dog to someone who didn't try to find the owner, or withheld it from its owner. It's a crazy world out there.


----------



## angelas

OK, now I know why she didn't want to give the dog back to the rightful owner. When asked what other dogs the owner had at home the owner said she had a pit bull. Judge Judy HATES pit bulls and I have never seen her be judiciously fair to a pit bull owner.


----------



## Anubis_Star

That's interesting Angelas. I have never seen her on a pit bull case. I know that the stupid Nancy Grace HATES pit bulls, I have seen her chew out new parents for having a pit bull just because "you should NEVER have a pit bull with a child!" In general I like Judge Judy, her no sh*t approach. Just not in this case


----------



## selzer

See, what ever happened to justice being blind? Whose business is it what other dogs anyone has??? Why was that question even asked? 

JJ was sitting their like God, determining what would be the best home for this puppy, instead of upholding the law. Hag! I bet it mad her feel powerful to put her feelings toward the puppy over and above the owners of the dog. A little kid. No you can't just replace a puppy, HAG! Yes this kid probably will get another puppy some day, and he will love it. But it doesn't change the fact that he has sustained a serious miscarriage of justice. 

I wonder whether J.J. is fully entrenched in the animal rights movement.


----------



## NancyJ

Judge Judy is, well, there for whatever ratings she gets and not about justice but is about entertainment.

Anybody who goes on her show should no full well that she is not about justice - thing is, they both win and get paid from the funds. [if even that is real]


----------



## Jax08

I think the worst part about all this is the child...the child learned that there is no justice for him that day and he was exploited by his mother, the judge and the show. Every single person involved should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## llombardo

This should never even got as far as Judge Judy. The man that had that dog should have returned it to the little boy. Says a lot about society


----------



## selzer

Jax08 said:


> I think the worst part about all this is the child...the child learned that there is no justice for him that day and he was exploited by his mother, the judge and the show. Every single person involved should be ashamed of themselves.


Amen! 

Everyone should be ashamed of themselves! 

And obviously, the adults were willing to settle this on TV, whoever wins gets the dog, yay. 

No wisdom of Solomon here though.


----------



## GusGus

Anubis_Star said:


> That's interesting Angelas. I have never seen her on a pit bull case. I know that the stupid Nancy Grace HATES pit bulls, I have seen her chew out new parents for having a pit bull just because "you should NEVER have a pit bull with a child!" In general I like Judge Judy, her no sh*t approach. Just not in this case


A statement like that just screams "I'm SO ignorant!" At least that's what I hear when someone says something along those lines.


----------



## Lilie

It's all about ratings. 

It's all about making a buck. 

Sadly, folks who watch this garbage think that they now have the capability to pull a dog/puppy from another person for what ever reason they want to make up. They'll think the law will back them up.


----------



## zivagirl

Lilie said:


> It's all about ratings.
> 
> It's all about making a buck.
> 
> Sadly, folks who watch this garbage think that they now have the capability to pull a dog/puppy from another person for what ever reason they want to make up. They'll think the law will back them up.


I don't know of many people who would base their understanding of law on Judge Judy. And if they do, they'll discover that real law will treat them quite differently.


----------



## Lilie

zivagirl said:


> I don't know of many people who would base their understanding of law on Judge Judy. And if they do, they'll discover that real law will treat them quite differently.


I think you'd be suprised.


----------



## zivagirl

Lilie said:


> I think you'd be suprised.


That's true. You can also present yourself as a news station and not actually have real news, too. :wild:


----------



## jang

It was heartbreaking to see the boy sobbing and to watch jj interview him---However, how do we know what the LAW is? I am not siding with JJ but I also don't don't the legalities of the case..However, if simply judged by emotion, the boy should have gotten the dog back..


----------



## martemchik

Judge Judy is an arbitrator I believe...people chose to go that route for small things because it saves a lot on legal fees. You're right that a real court room wouldn't treat you like this, but I don't know if a real court room would even allow this case to get to the courts (small claims MAYBE).

First of all...$2500 for that dog? A real court room would charge the "replacement fee" of a dog. If she paid $2500 for that thing, she should've kept a better eye on it in the first place and not let it get out. But you'll never convince me that dog is worth $2500.

Second...the ways accepted by the court as "due diligence" to get the dog back are quite old school. Generally an ad in a newspaper, or another publication of some sort. Not signs, CL, humane society...this is because not everyone has access to these things or even knows they exist, but everyone knows about a newspaper.

The laws when it comes to finding something or buying something that was stolen are quite interesting. Problem with the dog is that there is very little proof that this dog is for sure theirs. It could be a different dog that the guy found. Sure...all signs point to the dog being the kid's but its not 100% certain. And you can't leave any doubt when making a ruling so in all technicality, she gave the kid more chance than she needed to, to get the dog back. Without a microchip, a collar with a tag, or just something to prove that this dog was the families, you don't really know 100% that it was.

The law technically states that if you find something, not on someone's private property, you can keep it. They are then deemed to have "disowned" it. It's the same reason why law enforcement can go through your trash for evidence but not your home without a warrant. Once its in the trash you are deemed to have discarded it and any claim of ownership to it. And I don't believe you have to make an effort to find its rightful owner. Although ethically or morally you might, legally you do not have to (like the people that find a huge sum of money and then turn it into the police).

Should the guy just have given the dog to them? Duh! But clearly this dragged on into a TV courtroom so for some reason he really wanted this thing.


----------



## Cheyanna

One thing about the "owner" mom. She had never taken the dog to the vet or got it vaccinated. The "thief" didn't think she deserved the dog. She lost the dog when it was 5 months old and had not gotten rabies shot? Irresponsible. I doubt she will use the money to buy a puppy. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Jax08

My dogs don't get rabies shots until they are 6 months. That is when it's required by law and so I wait to let their immune system mature more. Now if the pup never had ANY vaccinations, I would question that. However, the bottom line is we are talking about ownership. 

Riddle me this...a person takes your dog. You find the dog 2 months later while the whole time the person is hiding the dog from you knowing full well it's yours.

Last I knew, that was called.....Theft.


----------



## blackshep

llombardo said:


> This should never even got as far as Judge Judy. The man that had that dog should have returned it to the little boy. Says a lot about society


I agree, that was terrible. Shame on them, poor kid.


----------



## martemchik

Jax08 said:


> Riddle me this...a person takes your dog. You find the dog 2 months later while the whole time the person is hiding the dog from you knowing full well it's yours.
> 
> Last I knew, that was called.....Theft.


Yes...but this dog wasn't taken off their property. It was found wandering the streets. Therefore not theft. Legally the guy has no obligation to return the found property to its rightful owner since it wasn't taken off their property.

Remember...a dog is property...it doesn't matter that they can walk off your private property and you're not technically "losing" them when they do that. Morally we would probably all consider what he did theft, legally its not even close.


----------



## Draugr

Jax08 said:


> Judge Judy messed up. What a horrifying precedent.


It doesn't create any precedent. Judge Judy is an arbitrator with a judicial background. The two parties agree before the "case" to abide by her decision - but it is definitely not a court case. Arbitration is an alternative means of resolving a dispute that can be much cheaper than going through the actual full legal process - but is still legally binding.


----------



## Lilie

martemchik said:


> Yes...but this dog wasn't taken off their property. It was found wandering the streets. Therefore not theft. Legally the guy has no obligation to return the found property to its rightful owner since it wasn't taken off their property.
> 
> Remember...a dog is property...it doesn't matter that they can walk off your private property and you're not technically "losing" them when they do that. Morally we would probably all consider what he did theft, legally its not even close.


I'm pretty sure the law requires the person to turn the dog into the local animal shelter with the request for first right for adoption if they wish to keep it.


----------



## Jax08

In most states, you have to make a reasonable effort to find the owner. You can't just keep an animal if you know where the owner is. If I drop my wallet, it doesn't give a person the right to my credit cards and cash.


----------



## Jax08

Draugr said:


> It doesn't create any precedent. Judge Judy is an arbitrator with a judicial background. The two parties agree before the "case" to abide by her decision - but it is definitely not a court case. Arbitration is an alternative means of resolving a dispute that can be much cheaper than going through the actual full legal process - but is still legally binding.





Jax08 said:


> excuse me for using the wrong word. why don't you pick the proper one


I sure wish people would read the whole thread.


----------



## Sawwahbear

Jax08 said:


> I think the worst part about all this is the child...the child learned that there is no justice for him that day and he was exploited by his mother, the judge and the show. Every single person involved should be ashamed of themselves.


It is sad, but hey, welcome to life!
he would have learned it eventually.


----------



## martemchik

Lilie said:


> I'm pretty sure the law requires the person to turn the dog into the local animal shelter with the request for first right for adoption if they wish to keep it.


Don't think that's true. Some shelters are hours away...you can't require someone that found an animal to drive hours away in order to turn it in for a few days to a shelter that might possibly either be diseased or put the dog down when the owner doesn't show up.

The other comment about a reasonable effort to find the owner...also not completely true. What defines reasonable? I saw the dog, looked left, right, yelled, "is this anyone's dog?", is that reasonable? Or do I have to spend my time and money on posting posters/taking out newspaper ads/ect in order to locate a person that can't responsibly keep their dog in their home/yard?

The wallet...credit cards are illegal to use because the money is technically not yours, its the company's that's giving you the credit, so they're stealing from that company. Cash...questionable, they could actually make a claim on it. I think wallet would get fuzzy because more than likely an ID would be in there stating who's wallet it is...so you could make some effort to find that person.

The dog...had no identification on it. If you start posting ads about a found dog, how do you know the person calling/coming to your door is truly the owner of that dog? There are a lot of fun legal things that go on with things like this.


----------



## Jax08

Sawwahbear said:


> It is sad, but hey, welcome to life!
> he would have learned it eventually.


Really? While they will eventually learn that life can really suck...there is no way I would have ever, ever put my 10 yr old in that position. That would fall under my definition of Bad Parenting.


----------



## Jax08

You can look up your local laws but most states have a minimum amount of time for owners to reclaim, required by law, before the animal can be put up for adoption. And there are also laws dictating when you can keep a stray animal.


----------



## Draugr

Jax08 said:


> I sure wish people would read the whole thread.


Sorry =/. I skimmed through the thread but must have missed that.


----------



## Lilie

This Texas statute provides that a municipality or county may adopt ordinances or rules to require that each dog or cat be restrained by its owner and that any stray dog or cat be declared a public nuisance. Further, it can declare that each unrestrained dog or cat be detained or impounded by the local rabies control authority. *Each **stray dog or cat be* *impounded for a period set by ordinance or rule* and a humane disposition be made of each unclaimed stray dog or cat upon its expiration. 


Dang...you made me look it up.


----------



## martemchik

Oh man I just looked up the Wisconsin law...its a joke. They're clearly based off of really old farm animal laws. You have to file notices with the city government (I'm sure the clerk would love to start getting lost animal notices), you have penalties if you don't do this within a certain amount of days, but then the person has A YEAR to reclaim their animal!!! Are you serious? So you could find a dog, "adopt" this dog, file the notice, and the person can just sit there and wait for a few months (or up to A YEAR) in order to reclaim the dog.

As wrong as this situation was...think about if you had followed the law I just looked up, filed all the right notices and paperwork, and then kept the dog in your home for months, and some stranger shows up and can just take it away from you like that? Yes...dogs bond quickly, some faster than others, so 2 months was clearly enough time, but think if you've had a dog for 6, 8, 10, months...and then its just taken!

I should add...the minimum value of said animal has to be $10...just so we can all gauge how old the law is.


----------



## arycrest

martemchik said:


> Yes...but this dog wasn't taken off their property. It was found wandering the streets. Therefore not theft. Legally the guy has no obligation to return the found property to its rightful owner since it wasn't taken off their property.
> 
> Remember...a dog is property...it doesn't matter that they can walk off your private property and you're not technically "losing" them when they do that. Morally we would probably all consider what he did theft, legally its not even close.


i'm curious as to where you got this legal information ... from all I've heard stealing is stealing regardless of where the property is taken or "found and not returned" ... be it a $1,000,000 necklace or a worthless mutt.


----------



## arycrest

martemchik said:


> Oh man I just looked up the Wisconsin law...its a joke. They're clearly based off of really old farm animal laws. You have to file notices with the city government (I'm sure the clerk would love to start getting lost animal notices), you have penalties if you don't do this within a certain amount of days, but then the person has A YEAR to reclaim their animal!!! Are you serious? So you could find a dog, "adopt" this dog, file the notice, and the person can just sit there and wait for a few months (or up to A YEAR) in order to reclaim the dog.
> 
> As wrong as this situation was...think about if you had followed the law I just looked up, filed all the right notices and paperwork, and then kept the dog in your home for months, and some stranger shows up and can just take it away from you like that? Yes...dogs bond quickly, some faster than others, so 2 months was clearly enough time, but think if you've had a dog for 6, 8, 10, months...and then its just taken!
> 
> I should add...the minimum value of said animal has to be $10...just so we can all gauge how old the law is.


Just read this after posting my message. So in your opinion it's okay to thumb your nose at laws you disagree with? What if the shoe's on the other foot ... what if it's YOUR dog in question ... do you think just because someone finds him walking on the street he should be entitled to thumb his nose at the law, say FINDERS KEEPERS and keep your dog, even if you find him months later???? Give me a break ... my dogs mean more to me than this irrational logic.


----------



## martemchik

arycrest said:


> Just read this after posting my message. So in your opinion it's okay to thumb your nose at laws you disagree with? What if the shoe's on the other foot ... what if it's YOUR dog in question ... do you think just because someone finds him walking on the street he should be entitled to thumb his nose at the law, say FINDERS KEEPERS and keep your dog, even if you find him months later???? Give me a break ... my dogs mean more to me than this irrational logic.


Oh no no no...not what I'm saying at all. Do I think the law is irrational? Yes, but I think you should definitely follow it if it applies to you. Not sure if all states have this long of a limit and what not but I think some of the stuff written in the law is comical.

I get it...the family would be happy to be reunited with the dog after x amount of months, but then your family would be heartbroken to have a dog taken away from them.

I also don't think the state follows their own law though. I'm pretty positive our pound is one that puts dogs down that don't have any kind of microchip or collar on them. I believe its like a 10 day hold...then they open it up to anyone to adopt (including rescues or the local humane society)...and then its probably PTS. I KNOW for a fact they don't hold dogs for a year and file notices with the city clerk.

As to my legal knowledge...its from a law class I had to take for my degree (not that long ago).


----------



## blackshep

arycrest said:


> i'm curious as to where you got this legal information ... from all I've heard stealing is stealing regardless of where the property is taken or "found and not returned" ... be it a $1,000,000 necklace or a worthless mutt.


That's what I'm wondering, like if someone steals your car parked out on the street?

Also, and I don't know the legalities - Judge Judy compensated the family financially. Perhaps she was doing what she thought was best for the young dog who'd clearly bonded with it's new family, to not uproot his life again, but to compensate the family financially for their loss?

Sucks for the family and their kid and the whole thing could have easily been avoided if they'd just done the right thing to begin with. But maybe she was trying to do the right thing for the dog, while still compensating the family, in some way?

I felt terrible for the poor kid though, he was broken hearted.


----------



## martemchik

blackshep said:


> That's what I'm wondering, like if someone steals your car parked out on the street?.


It's like the wallet...your name is on the car. The vehicle is registered in your name. Most likely you have the title in your name or at least at the bank where you are making payments. So although it happens on public property, its clearly your property. That's why chop shops and thieves are known to try and scratch/remove the vin numbers as fast as possible so then it could just be "any" car.

Other things fall in the grey...most likely because its very difficult to prove that that item actually belongs to you. This is so you don't have people walking around and accusing people of "stealing" their things. For example...you have an ipod, I see you with said ipod, call the police and claim I dropped it 2 days ago on the street and that is my ipod, are we now supposed to go to court to figure out who the liar is?

Kind of the same thing with a dog...I have a sable shepherd, and although I have plenty of pictures to show that I have ownership of a sable shepherd, and have his AKC paperwork in my name (kind of like a title and would probably hold up in court), if he were to run away and get "nabbed" I might have a tough time convincing others that the sable shepherd in question is my shepherd.

I'm not saying its right...I'm just saying its the law...and it works in very funny ways.

Did you know that if you purchase something that is stolen, without knowledge that it was stolen, you actually have the right to retain ownership. The original owner can only recoup legally from the person that stole the item and sold it to you...while you get to keep the item.


----------



## zivagirl

blackshep said:


> That's what I'm wondering, like if someone steals your car parked out on the street?
> 
> Also, and I don't know the legalities - Judge Judy compensated the family financially. Perhaps she was doing what she thought was best for the young dog who'd clearly bonded with it's new family, to not uproot his life again, but to compensate the family financially for their loss?
> 
> Sucks for the family and their kid and the whole thing could have easily been avoided if they'd just done the right thing to begin with. But maybe she was trying to do the right thing for the dog, while still compensating the family, in some way?
> 
> I felt terrible for the poor kid though, he was broken hearted.


The right thing, from the start, would have been to keep the pup restrained so it wouldn't get away. The right thing would have been to take the pup and have it chipped the day he came home. The right thing would have been taking measures to find the rightful owner. The right thing would have been if everyone involved had done the right thing.


----------



## martemchik

By the way...just hope you guys know that my opinion isn't like what the law states. I do believe you should do everything possible to reunite the dog or item with its rightful owner. I don't agree with Judge Judy's decision and I don't agree with the theft laws that I've been discussing and do think you should do what you can to make things right. If I were to find a stray dog, I'd try to keep it with me, in my home (making sure its healthy) and contact the pound/humane society telling them I have the dog but it will stay with me so that there isn't undue burden on the facility. Hopefully I'd find the owner, and most likely if I couldn't I'd rehome it through a rescue or something of that nature.


----------



## angelas

A little late in the discussion, but...

I have to question her on her logic of the puppy being more bonded to the thief just because it lived with him for two months. I have to call BS.

In Oct 2011 we took in a dog who's owners were dying of cancer. One former owner died that Dec and the other lived until August 2012. On the day he died my parents took the dog, who was and is very bonded to my mother, down to the hospital. When that dog saw her former owner she was out of my mother's arms and in the hospital bed absolutely beside herself with joy. She may have been bonded to my mother, who she'd been living with for the last 10 months, but that does not mean she stopped loving her former owners. Dog and former owner spent a hour cuddling in the hospital bed.

There is no doubt that this dog was more bonded to her former owner that she hadn't seen in 10 months, than my mother who she'd lived with all that time.


----------



## Lilie

martemchik said:


> Did you know that if you purchase something that is stolen, without knowledge that it was stolen, you actually have the right to retain ownership. The original owner can only recoup legally from the person that stole the item and sold it to you...while you get to keep the item.


I know nothing about the state that you live in, but in Texas that is absolutely not true. At all. 

If you purchase a stolen item, that item is to be seized and held until the court decides who it belong to. If I (unknowingly) purchased a stolen item and the original owner shows up for court and they prove the item belongs to them, the Judge can rule in their favor. 

Example: If an officer goes to a pawn shop and sees an item that has been pawned and recognizes it as a stolen item (they have stolen property reports), they seize said item (and anything else that looks suspicious, like weapons with serial numbers removed, etc.). They file a Seizure hearing in a JP court, which all parties are notified. If the original owner recieved insurance monies for the stolen items, they are supposed to notify the insurance company. The pawn shop can appear as well. But if they lose, they go home empty handed. 

Also - if my daughter knowingly buys a stolen TV and takes it to my home and the police come to seize that TV - anything else in my home that I can't prove I purchased CAN be seized as suspect stolen items. Because I housed stolen property, I have to prove the other property is mine.


----------



## martemchik

Lilie said:


> I know nothing about the state that you live in, but in Texas that is absolutely not true. At all.
> 
> If you purchase a stolen item, that item is to be seized and held until the court decides who it belong to. If I (unknowingly) purchased a stolen item and the original owner shows up for court and they prove the item belongs to them, the Judge can rule in their favor.
> 
> Example: If an officer goes to a pawn shop and sees an item that has been pawned and recognizes it as a stolen item (they have stolen property reports), they seize said item (and anything else that looks suspicious, like weapons with serial numbers removed, etc.). They file a Seizure hearing in a JP court, which all parties are notified. If the original owner recieved insurance monies for the stolen items, they are supposed to notify the insurance company. The pawn shop can appear as well. But if they lose, they go home empty handed.
> 
> Also - if my daughter knowingly buys a stolen TV and takes it to my home and the police come to seize that TV - anything else in my home that I can't prove I purchased CAN be seized as suspect stolen items. Because I housed stolen property, I have to prove the other property is mine.


But before all this the person would have to prove that you had some sort of knowledge...or a reasonable person would've had some knowledge that they were purchasing a stolen good. Be it a heavily discounted sales price, no receipt/cash sale, not buying from an authorized place, not paying sales tax, ect. So its not as easy as, I think this person has my stolen item. There has to be a lot of back up and proof before the cops waltz in with a warrant and start picking through your stuff.

Otherwise...anyone could try and make a case that you have something of theirs and if they play their cards right the courts might just rule in their favor. So the law is generally written in a way that makes it extremely hard for the original owner to retain their item. The law is however geared towards getting restitution from the person that committed the original theft.


----------



## selzer

I don't know where ya'all are coming from, but receiving stolen property (including buying it) is against the law here. And while we all like to think we are innocent until proven guilty, if the prosecutor can prove the property you received was stolen, you might have to go some distance to prove that you could not have been expected to know that. 

Dogs around here have to be licensed like a car is licensed. Yes dog should wear the license when they are off the property, but there is a leash law here anyway, so the dog should be leashed to its person if they are off the property. The thing is, sometimes a dog scoots out a door when the neighbor kid walks in, or the meter reader leaves the back gate open, or you have a car wreck and your dog's crate broke open when it was flung from the vehicle -- this actually happened to someone I know. 

It is no one's right to see the dog, like it, and take it home, ignoring any of the original owner's attempts to find the dog. That is theft. Judge Judy rewarded the theif, though she charged him for the dog. She put a warped sense of dog guardianship above what was right. 

It's still ticking me off.


----------



## msvette2u

Did you watch the episode?


----------



## selzer

No.


----------



## msvette2u

Well then you'll need to watch it to see how it actually played out, and her "reasoning" behind the "judgement". 
I happened to view the episode and there's a few things left out, in this thread.


----------



## Nikitta

I never saw this episode and would never go on Judge Judy myself but I have to admit I LOVE watching it.  I wish more judges would tell these idiots that go to court for idiotic reasons would tell them to their face that they are idiots.


----------



## msvette2u

Nikitta said:


> I never saw this episode and would never go on Judge Judy myself but I have to admit I LOVE watching it.  I wish more judges would tell these idiots that go to court for idiotic reasons would tell them to their face that they are idiots.


I love that about her. 
I watch the episodes 2 days behind everyone else (we don't have cable or satellite and can't get CBS) so I admit, was chomping at the bit to see the dog episode and I did watch it yesterday.


----------



## angelas

Then, there are stories like this. How it's supposed to be resolved.

Good Ending

Here, if you receive stolen property the property is seized by the sheriff but you are only charged if the police can reasonably prove that you knew it was stolen. 

A coworker's daughter had her Harley stolen and sold by the guy who was paid to store it over the winter. When they found out where the bike was the sheriff took it and all the parts spread around it in the garage it was in. Daughter got to keep everything that was attached to the bike and the buyer was told he'd have to recover the money he paid for it from the thief (good luck) but was not charged with receiving stolen property. The thief learned exactly what the HA's think about pledges stealing bikes from 17-year-old girls on top of being charged with theft.


----------



## msvette2u

A chip would have made _all_ the difference in the world. 
That puppy, at 5mos., hadn't even seen a vet in her last home (the home that lost her), so they had no vet bills, even.


----------



## Dainerra

martemchik said:


> Yes...but this dog wasn't taken off their property. It was found wandering the streets. Therefore not theft. Legally the guy has no obligation to return the found property to its rightful owner since it wasn't taken off their property.
> 
> Remember...a dog is property...it doesn't matter that they can walk off your private property and you're not technically "losing" them when they do that. Morally we would probably all consider what he did theft, legally its not even close.


actually, most states have laws that say what you have to do with ANY found property. Find a wallet? a ring? a dog? a bracelet? You are supposed to contact the police (and with a dog also the humane society or whatever entity is in your area) and make valid VERIFIED attempts to find the owner. If the property isn't claimed after a certain amount of time, then it belongs to you. 
If you DON"T follow the steps to attempt to locate the rightful owner, then yes, it is legally considered theft. "Finders Keepers" isn't the law of the land.


----------



## Dainerra

to elaborate since it was asked in other posts reasonable effort includes:

calling the police dept/humane society with a description of the found animal as well as the location you found it. 

ad in the local newspaper. (most papers don't charge for lost/found ads)

That is it. Free and takes only a few minutes. And, yes, legally speaking you are entitled for any "reasonable" money you spent on the dog - vet care, grooming, whatever - if/when the owner reclaims the dog.

ETA: generally speaking, the effort has to be something that you can A) prove and B) that the original owner would have access to. Even if you could prove that you stood on the corner saying "I found a lost dog" it isn't reasonable to expect the owner to be right there, at the right time, to hear your announcement.


----------



## martemchik

angelas said:


> Here, if you receive stolen property the property is seized by the sheriff but you are only charged if the police can reasonably prove that you knew it was stolen.
> 
> A coworker's daughter had her Harley stolen and sold by the guy who was paid to store it over the winter. When they found out where the bike was the sheriff took it and all the parts spread around it in the garage it was in. Daughter got to keep everything that was attached to the bike and the buyer was told he'd have to recover the money he paid for it from the thief (good luck) but was not charged with receiving stolen property. The thief learned exactly what the HA's think about pledges stealing bikes from 17-year-old girls on top of being charged with theft.


Again...an example where the item in question has clearly identifiable markings which the original owner can use to prove that the item is theirs. I'm talking about items that are mass produced and look like everyone else's. You need very clear proof that that item was yours, and that the person who purchased it from the thief should've known that something was fishy. Like buying an item worth $100 on the open market for $20...you should've known that your "great deal" was questionable. This prevents anyone from just claiming that something you have is theirs.

Like...you overhear that someone just bought an ipod off craigslist. So they most likely don't have a receipt and its hard to prove it was a legitimate purchase. You claim that who ever they purchased it off of stole it from you. Would the cops just go and take the item? Lock it up and then wait for proof? No...you need that proof before you even call the police that the item is yours and that the person should've known they're buying stolen property (in the courts this is extremely hard to do).

The point I was making was that with a dog...without a collar or microchip is very hard to prove that it is yours. I know the guy should've contacted some other sources and said he found a dog, but he didn't. So he broke the law, and he should've just given the dog back to the family in the first place. But I also see how its difficult to give them back a dog that never saw a vet and wasn't taken care of well enough to even keep it in the yard.


----------



## arycrest

martemchik said:


> ...
> The law technically states that if you find something, not on someone's private property, you can keep it. They are then deemed to have "disowned" it. It's the same reason why law enforcement can go through your trash for evidence but not your home without a warrant. Once its in the trash you are deemed to have discarded it and any claim of ownership to it. And I don't believe you have to make an effort to find its rightful owner. Although ethically or morally you might, legally you do not have to (like the people that find a huge sum of money and then turn it into the police).


Could you *please *provide links to Wisconsin's state or local "finders keepers" law you keep referring to???? There's a huge difference between police going thru someone's trash/garbage and someone finding a valuable item that was lost/stolen such as a $1,000,000 diamond necklace or a dog.


----------



## martemchik

arycrest said:


> Could you *please *provide links to Wisconsin's state or local "finders keepers" law you keep referring to???? There's a huge difference between police going thru someone's trash/garbage and someone finding a valuable item that was lost/stolen such as a $1,000,000 diamond necklace or a dog.


I've already said the one about pets is different. But I can't find anything about personal property. I found the common law interpretation but no statute based stuff. All I can find is the unclaimed property law which is different than finding something. The little bit of research I did keeps bringing up 30 days and its yours type stuff but nothing about actually HAVING to turn the property into an authority of any type.

This is most likely due to the fact that its very hard to tell the difference between personal property affects. Without documentation, insurance, official paperwork...could you really prove that a piece of found property is yours? That's my point when it comes to dogs...I have a sable GSD...he looks a lot like 1,000,000 other sable GSDs...if he is lost...without any paperwork/tags/microchip...could I really prove that a found sable GSD is mine?


----------



## arycrest

martemchik said:


> I've already said the one about pets is different. But I can't find anything about personal property. I found the common law interpretation but no statute based stuff. All I can find is the unclaimed property law which is different than finding something. The little bit of research I did keeps bringing up 30 days and its yours type stuff but nothing about actually HAVING to turn the property into an authority of any type.
> 
> This is most likely due to the fact that its very hard to tell the difference between personal property affects. Without documentation, insurance, official paperwork...could you really prove that a piece of found property is yours? That's my point when it comes to dogs...I have a sable GSD...he looks a lot like 1,000,000 other sable GSDs...if he is lost...without any paperwork/tags/microchip...could I really prove that a found sable GSD is mine?


Thanks ... I must have missed your first reply.


----------

