Can owner of stolen goods found for sale subpoena seller to disclose the source? Someone steals Bob's bike in 2010. In 2020 Bob finds it for sale. It's too late to prosecute for theft, so the police wouldn't bother. Of course Bob doesn't know if the seller was the thief. The bike could have changed many hands in 10 years. But Bob wants to find the thief and get compensated via a civil claim and/or publicly name/shame them. Bob may not care about the bike now anymore (it can be in horrible condition). But he wants to track down the thief and sue them for damages (depriving of using the bike which was almost new when stolen). Can Bob get the court to subpoena the seller to reveal where the bike came from, and then subpoena all revealed previous owners too?
Civil claims have statutes of limitations too Usually shorter than 10 years. Therefore, Bob cannot sue anyone for recovery and therefore does not practically own the bike. In some jurisdictions, limitations acts make it explicit that Bob loses title to the goods meaning he doesn’t own the bike de jure as well as de facto. It’s not possible to say what a “typical” limitation period is but periods above 10 years typically only apply to actions on real property (land) not personal property (bike). However, that just begs the question. The criminal limitation is irrelevant to the civil action They are completely independent so whether a criminal action has happened, is in progress or can’t happen doesn’t affect the civil action. Bob doesn’t need the information The person who has the bike may or may not be the one who converted it: Bob doesn’t care because they are presently the one detaining it. So Bob sues for detinue: you have it, it’s mine, give it back, or, give me monetary compensation. Whether the person who has it acquired it lawfully or not is a matter of complete indifference to Bob. If they did acquire it lawfully then they have a breach of contract cause of action against the person who sold them goods without good title. But that’s their problem, not Bob’s.
Suppose Publisher printed 10,000 copies under the terms of the contract, and within those two years they sold 7,000 copies (and paid royalties). If you did not receive leftover copies at the end of the 2 years, then either (1) they broke the contract or (2) at the last minute they sold the remainder to some third party. If the latter is the case, they would be obligated to pay royalties on that last sale, and the numbers should add up (assuming you know how many were printed initially). If they failed to pay royalties, or they continued to sell the book, you would need to send your lawyer after them. Another possibility is the lost-email excuse – "We emailed you asking if you wanted the books, and you didn't reply, so we sold them" (disposing of does not necessary mean "destroy"). The burden would be on them to prove that they offered you the remainders and you elected not to purchase (if that is the wording – the contract could have required a specific refusal, not just a failure to respond). Under the contract, Publisher can't just decide to keep printing the book, nor can they continue to distribute it (but a third party could distribute existing copies forever). You would have "legal exposure" i.e. some risk of being sued if you republish, but it might be minimal – definitely get your attorney to advise you on that. Vendors might refuse to sell the republished work if they think it is an unauthorized edition.
Generally: Theft. All Three times. With only one exception. germany I assume that John declared &quot;Sperrmüll&quot; and put it out for collection or was put into the black bin. The chair thus was properly intended to be given to the trash collection service. The declared item was put out for collection or chucked into the bin. Till the moment the waste truck arrives, the item is property of John, then he relinquishes ownership via § 959 BGB Abandonment of Ownership the moment the declared item is pricked up by the intended recipient, which has (prospect) ownership interest1. For example, waste disposal services could burn a wood chair for its thermic value, a metal one would be scrapped etc. Jane isn't allowed to take it, so she steals from them2 under § 242 StGB Theft3. In case John just put the chair onto the street without anything in the intent to dispose of it, he might be guilty of &quot;Unerlaubter Umgang mit Abfällen&quot; aka &quot;Wild Littering&quot; (§ 326 StGB Unauthorised Waste Management) if he can be identified, but at the same time, Jane does steal from him under § 242 StGB Theft, as he never relinquished ownership properly (because §326 and local ordinances preclude that). John puts out the chair to dispose of it to anyone and makes sure it's clear to everybody that he has relinquished his ownership to whoever wants it by putting a sign gift or for free on it. Now he still might commit wild littering but he also properly relinquishes the item under § 959 BGB Abandonment of Ownership, Jane would acquire the chair under § 958 BGB Acquisition of ownership of ownerless movable things In case John didn't want to dispose of the chair but just place it there so he can have a break there later, it's just Jane committing theft under § 242 StGB Theft. The chair was John's property for sale. Jane took it without the required payment to make it a sale contract and the intent to deprive him of chair and money. So she steals it under § 242 StGB Theft. It's exactly the same case as 2, but replace &quot;chair&quot; with &quot;cookies&quot;. 1 - if John doesn't own the item, he can't relinquish the item and so technically the waste disposal service does commit theft, yet in declaring the item for collection, John also declared he would own all items or have the allowance to put them for collection or pay for any and all damages that result from him disposing of the items. 2 - the collective of both John and the Waste Disposal Service - technically both can sue jointly and separately 3 - As an extra caveat: John also needs to make sure that his Sperrmüll doesn't create dangers or harms anyone, as he is liable for damages from it till it is collected. Even if Jane would throw around the waste and create the danger. The best he might manage is to get part of the fines back from Jane for contributing to the danger, but he is technically required to prevent or remove the danger.
In theory its only a crime if you know, or reasonably suspect, that it is stolen. The fact that you have to ask means that you have some level of suspicion, so that's not good to start with. In practice merely being investgated by the police will bring you a world of hurt long before it gets to trial. How much can you afford to spend on legal fees, and will you be able to make bail?
If that which you describe in your comment ( Facebook post as only basis for warrantless search) is, and can be shown, to be the only basis for the search, and there was no evidence of a crime in plain view when they arrived.....then yes, it is likely the search and all evidence acquired from the search would be excludable. As to whether the individual could still be prosecuted, that depends if a case could be built independent of the evidence collected during the search.
When Bob buys a thing, it becomes his, and it ceases to be the property of the seller. By &quot;buy&quot;, we understand that to mean &quot;pays for and receives physical control of&quot;. At that point, Bob is responsible to control of his new property. His ownership of the property is not contingent on him leaving the store. You might assign blame to the shop if they were negligent in some way, for example if they hire a thief to do the exit-check and the door guard takes Bob's property. Obviously, the thief is ultimately liable, but the store might under special circumstances be liable if they indirectly caused his loss. A store does not have an obligation to guarantee that a customer immediately and securely exits the store after making a purchase, so they are not liable for failing to immediately eject him from the store after buying the goods.
If Bob acknowledges how he has altered the evidence at the time he submits it, there shouldn't be any issues with it turning into falsification, which generally only becomes a problem when it's done with an intent to mislead the court. More likely, an opposing party would raise an authenticity objection, i.e, that the evidence has been altered and is therefore not trustworthy. It's probably going to be up to the judge whether to sustain that objection or not, and I'd expect the court's decision to turn in large part on how plausible it finds Bobs allegations of fraud and retaliation. I'd also expect that the Court would be less concerned with the pitch alteration than the redaction of portions of the recording. If we don't know what Bob is saying, it makes it hard to understand the full context of the conversation. Of course, all of this assumes that Bob hasn't already been forced to turn over the original recordings to Company, which he will be. The parties have a right to each other's evidence, and they are required to identify their witnesses to each other. The moment Company knows about the recording, it is going to submit a discovery request demanding a copy, and Bob will be obligated to comply. If Bob objects that doing so would expose the representatives to retaliation, I would expect the court to warn Company against tampering with witnesses and then order Bob to comply with his discovery obligations.
Theft is of course illegal in all US states, and pretty much every other jurisdiction. In the US that is a matter of state law, not federal. It could be reported to the local police, but it might be hard to prove. Both landlord/tenant law and privacy law are largely matters of state law in the US, not federal law. Such laws vary a good deal in different states. In many states a landlord is allowed to enter the rented premises, usually on "reasonable" notice, or without notice if there is an emergency. If the landlord actually lives in another part of the house, and simply rents a room to the tenant, the landlord may be able to enter the room more freely than if it was a separate apartment or house. In many cases where there is a written lease or rental agreement, it will specify under what conditions the landlord or landlord's agent may enter, and how much notice is required. What does the lease in the current case say about that?