Friday, May 16, 2008
The General Assembly is now in session.
Tracking Virginia’s General Assembly
since 2007.
HB159: Stolen goods; person guilty of larceny if knowledge of property buying or receiving is stolen.
Chief Patron
Del.
Dave Albo (R-42)
Dave Albo
(R-42)
Served: 1994–
Progress
 |
Introduced |
|
Passed Committee |
|
Passed House |
|
Passed Senate |
|
Signed by Governor |
|
Became Law |
Status
03/12/2008: signed by governor
Summary
Proof that property is stolen. Provides that if a law-enforcement officer tells a person in possession of stolen property that the property is stolen, the person shall be charged with the knowledge that the property is stolen.
View Full Text »Video
Votes were cast on this bill on the following dates for which Richmond Sunlight has video: 01/10/2008, 02/01/2008, 02/01/2008, 02/04/2008, 02/04/2008, 02/05/2008, 02/11/2008, 02/12/2008, 02/13/2008, 02/13/2008, 02/14/2008, 02/14/2008, 02/26/2008, 02/26/2008, 02/28/2008, 02/28/2008, 02/29/2008 and 03/06/2008.
Photosynthesis
This bill is being tracked by Fairfax Coalition of Police, signal, Aimee, Timothy W., Watch and Buddy B.
Cast Your Vote
Do you support this bill in its current form?
Tags
Bill Text
Related Bills
Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
Subscribe
Keep track of the status of this bill as it moves through the General Assembly
— subscribe
via RSS.
Comments
This sounds like a terrible idea. If I buy a bike from some guy on Craigslist, a cop could knock in my front door, tell me that the bike is stolen, and then charge me with knowingly possessing stolen property because he just told me?
Huh? This might be the dumbest bill submitted so far this year. In fact, it might be the dumbest bill I have ever read... can someone point me to a bill that is even dumber than this?
After reading the full text of this bill, I do believe that we're not substantially misunderstanding it. I've chopped out the confusing bits and rearranged the language to simplify what the bill says, and I'm left with this:
Since that would supplement §18.2-109, I think this affects only a "vehicle, aircraft, boat or vessel" that's been stolen. But while that narrows the scope of the bill, it renders it no less foolish.
This is indeed a strange proposal and must have been prompted by bizarre facts in a recent case. No, Waldo, the proposed bill is not limited to vehicles, etc; by its own terms it applies to the entire larceny article (sections 18.2-95 through 18.2-110).
The effect of the proposal, as I read it, is this: an officer knocks on your door and tells you the bike is stolen. If thereafter you refuse to surrender your bike to the officer, you are then in knowing possession of stolen property.
[For those who care, knowing possession of stolen property is not technically a crime, but that is how 18.2-109 is often read and prosecuted. 18.2-109 actually prohibits (a) knowing receipt or purchase of stolen property and (b)concealing stolen property.]
Well, this is one that should never make it any further than the paper its written on. We must have a little more evidence than the word of an officer who is taking the word of someone else.
Post a Public Comment About this Bill