Returning a found mobile phone

ier

Is it ok to return a mobile phone that was found to a garda station? I checked the garda website but only found this, related to items found specifically in taxis
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=5500

If the mobile phone was found more than a year ago but only returned now (the finder forgot about it and only came across it now while digging through his old stuff), can the finder be charged by the garda for theft by finding?

(It's a normal old mobile phone, not a smartphone)

Midnight Sundance

To be honest if the phone was found a year ago the chances of its rightful owner looking for it are fairly slim. Maybe donate it to jack and Jill phone drive or something??

ier

Midnight Sundance wrote: »

To be honest if the phone was found a year ago the chances of its rightful owner looking for it are fairly slim. Maybe donate it to jack and Jill phone drive or something??

I completely agree. The reason I'd like it returned though because it might hold a personal or sentimental value. (I lost a camera once that was a gift from a childhood friend. Got a new one later of course but would have really loved to get my old one back)...
The phone looks like it belonged to a teenager, and is "personalized" a bit.

But... someone told me in such cases larceny by finding might apply.

So basically my question is how likely is the following scenario:

---

Finder: I'd like to give this mobile phone I found.
Garda officer: When did you find it?
Finder: A year and a half ago.
Officer: And you're only returning it now? I'm afraid I'm going to have to charge you with larceny by finding.

---

Another option would be to find a charger and if no PIN is required see if anyone from the phonebook can be contacted to find the owner (the battery was dead and no compatible charger available, which is the reason this wasn't done straight away). But the owner might also react the same way "why the f didn't you return it straight away??".

Procrastastudy

I can see you are trying to start an interesting legal discussion - in the legal discussion forum of all places! On the off chance you want some common sense advice (as I have no interesting legal knowledge on this subject) here's mine.

Walk in to the Garda Station hand it in and say you just found it down the street. If during, what will no doubt be a though and complete investigation by the Gardai, they turn up it's been missing for 18 months - I'm sure they will just assume the person who initially found it lost it among their own stuff and was worried that returning it may land them with a theft by finding charge. Therefore they dumped it to avoid the heat of this heinous crime!

ier

Aaah.

Thanks GCD student, that reply was actaully helpful.

I seriously had absolutely no idea what the procedures were when returning a lost item to the Garda, but the amount of sarcasm in your post made it more or less clear. That's exactly what I wanted...

Procrastastudy

My sarcasm was not meant to cause offence my apologies. I actually thought you were looking for an academic discussion of law as it didn't occur to me that you wouldn't know the procedure for handing stuff in to a Garda station. We used to get a visit every year in my school (oh so many years ago) from the local community bobby and I thought something similar happened here.

Procedure is walk in and hand it into the desk. Just say you found it and don't say anymore. If they ask for details just say not to worry you don't need/want to be contacted. In actual fact you could just walk in plant it on the desk and say "found this down the street" and walk out. They won't follow you.

The reason they ask for details in the UK is after a period of time the finder gets it back if it's not claimed. Whether that happens here I'm afraid I don't know.

While we're admonishing though - not cool holding onto someones phone for over a year!

zg3409

My father found an iphone on the street. I first tries to contact the phone company (based on the SIM card). They were not interested. I offered to give them the number off the SIM card which would have identified the owner. I would swear they didn't even take down the number.

They said the phone was probably insured and the owner would just claim the insurance.

There might be a way to trace the owner, if you are technical, by reading phone numbers from the Sim card and contacting them.

Anyway when I went to the Garda station with the phone, the person there got me a form to fill out. They said I'd better keep the phone as it may go missing at the station!

The form said if not contacted in 30/60 days then the phone was mine.

ier

GCDlawstudent, no offense was taken and my thanks were really sincere.

I'm not Irish, and back in my country handing lost property back to the police is pretty much like you described it. But... when I mentioned the phone to a person living here, he told me about the larceny by finding, so my thought was "wow, maybe they do take this stuff very seriously over here". Which was the reason I posted here.

Again my thanks to all who replied. I can see now the the person was exaggerating.

I think the finder would try his luck with the Garda, and if that doesn't work will try contacting the owner directly. Again, his main concern here is to give it back in case it holds some personal value to the owner.

(The finder agrees he deserves some admonishing. In his defense, he was out of the country right after finding it and then misplaced it and forgot about it. Came across it now while digging through some of his old stuff. Pretty careless of him, but really non-intentional).

Procrastastudy

I don't know if I've been masterfully out sarcasmed here!

In all honesty OP the Gardai will do naff all with it other than maybe put it in a room somewhere. The network should have a record of who the IMEI number on the phone is registered too. Your best bet for reuniting it with its rightful owner is probably an anonymous letter in a parcel sent to the network HQ. Thats assuming you can find out what network it was on. Don't drop it into a shop it will almost certainly get lost.

Farcear

ier wrote: »

But... someone told me in such cases larceny by finding might apply.

Is that a crime in this jurisdiction?

(I recall various "finders keepers" cases from tort law that suggest otherwise to me.)

ebayissues

Aate of mine aound a phone in collge he other day, and he has put up ads about it being lost but no one replied.

what should he do ?

Zambia

Hand it in to a Garda Station.

However if a serious attempt was made to find the owner I doubt a charge of Theft by Finding could be brought.

Networks should be made look that stuff up. Use the following line

"I acknowledge you do not want to help me in this matter as my next port of call is Comreg could you give me your name and the name of your supervisor on today so I can include them."

And if you call call early as no-one wants to wait all day.

seamus

I don't think any kind of charge of "theft by finding" exists in this country, though it may exist under common law.

Theft in this country requires an intention on the part of the accused to deprive the rightful owner of their property for any amount of time.

So the person would not be guilty of theft for simply forgetting about the found item. The prosecution's case would likely hinge on looking at phone records to prove that the phone was in use during the time it was in the accused's possession.

I know there is an obligation when property is found to report it to the local Garda station and make a "reasonable" attempt to locate the owner. If it lies unclaimed for a year and a day, it becomes your property.

There may be an offence under that legislation of failing to report the item in good time, but I suspect that it's a misdemeanour if it's an offence at all.

coylemj

seamus wrote: »

I don't think any kind of charge of "theft by finding" exists in this country, though it may exist under common law.

Theft in this country requires an intention on the part of the accused to deprive the rightful owner of their property for any amount of time.

There was a specific offence of Larceny by Finding in the Larceny Act 1916 and it's preserved in the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.

In the Larceny Act 1916 you could be guilty of larceny if you found an item and kept it even though you knew that the owner could be discovered 'by the taking of reasonable steps'.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1916/50/section/1/enacted

1)A person steals who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent, at the time of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof :
Provided that a person may be guilty of stealing any such thing notwithstanding that he has lawful possession thereof, if, being a bailee or part owner thereof, he fraudulently converts the same to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner:

(2)—(i) the expression " takes" includes obtaining the possession—
(a)by any trick ;
(b)by intimidation;
(c)under a mistake on the part of the owner with knowledge on the part of the taker that possession has been so obtained ;
(d)by finding, where at the time of the finding the finder believes that the owner can be discovered by taking reasonable steps ;


In the 2001 act it's defined slightly differently but in essence is the same offence. The person who finds the goods and keeps them would use 4.2.b below as a defence i.e. 'yes Garda I did find the goods and I did keep them but I figured that the owner could not be determined by the taking of reasonable steps'.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0004.html#sec4


4.—(1) Subject to section 5 , a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person does not appropriate property without the consent of its owner if—

(a) the person believes that he or she has the owner's consent, or would have the owner's consent if the owner knew of the appropriation of the property and the circumstances in which it was appropriated, or

(b) (except where the property came to the person as trustee or personal representative) he or she appropriates the property in the belief that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps,

Effectively the leglislation says that if you find someone's pay packet and it has their name and the employer's name on the envelope, you can be guilty of larceny by finding if you keep the cash because clearly the owner can be found 'by the taking of reasonable steps'.

seamus

Thanks. There is still a question of intention though. The larceny by finding still implies that the person intentionally kept the property despite being aware that the owner could be tracked down.

I think it would be fair to say that there's a defence if the person unintentionally keeps the property.

Section 4 would seem to confirm this, though I may be wrong.

(4) If at the trial of a person for theft the court or jury, as the case may be has to consider whether the person believed—

(a) that he or she had not acted dishonestly

...

the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the court or jury shall have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether the person so believed.

coylemj

I don't think there is the slightest chance of the OP being found guilty of any kind of crime if that's the line you're pursuing and yes, if someone finds something, brings it home intending to find the owner and just plain forgets, that would be a valid defence since it would remove the mens rea (guilty mind) which is an essential ingredient for any conviction for fraud.

Zambia

coylemj wrote: »

I don't think there is the slightest chance of the OP being found guilty of any kind of crime if that's the line you're pursuing and yes, if someone finds something, brings it home intending to find the owner and just plain forgets, that would be a valid defence since it would remove the mens rea (guilty mind) which is an essential ingredient for any conviction for fraud.

Lets say Man A walks into a restaurant toilet alone he is there to use the toilet only.

He finds a Phone.

He takes the phone and puts it in his pocket.

He leaves the restaurant and does not approach staff.

He goes home and places the phone in a drawer a few days later Police arrive and arrest him for theft.

On interview he states he was going to put in ad in the local paper the net week.

Guilty of theft or not ? I would say guilty As he has taken no reasonable steps to locate the owner ie asking staff of restaurant.

seamus

Zambia wrote: »

Guilty of theft or not ? I would say guilty As he has taken no reasonable steps to locate the owner ie asking staff of restaurant.

However, it is a defence if the accused did not act dishonestly.

In your hypothetical scenario, at which point did the dishonesty arise?

deman

seamus wrote: »

Zambia wrote: »

Guilty of theft or not ? I would say guilty As he has taken no reasonable steps to locate the owner ie asking staff of restaurant.

However, it is a defence if the accused did not act dishonestly.

In your hypothetical scenario, at which point did the dishonesty arise?

When he took possession of something that didn't belong to him. The owner of the phone may have realised that he'd left the phone in the toilet, went back to get it, but no phone.

seamus

deman wrote: »

When he took possession of something that didn't belong to him. The owner of the phone may have realised that he'd left the phone in the toilet, went back to get it, but no phone.

So what you're saying is that if you find anything, the minute you pick it up you are guilty of theft, and we should just leave anything where we've found it?

MagicSean

seamus wrote: »

However, it is a defence if the accused did not act dishonestly.

In your hypothetical scenario, at which point did the dishonesty arise?

He didn't, but it would appear to most that he did.

As to the op, just bring the phone in and be honest and if you get the bollocking you deserve than accept it and learn your lesson.

I'll tell you a story. A few weeks ago a woman brought an item into my station. She had found it 3 weeks earlier and had forgotten to bring it in. Turns out the object had been stolen in an armed robbery the day she found it and was an important piece of evidence. So op could be holding the phone of a missing person or a murder victim for all he knows and it could be very important.

coylemj

Zambia wrote: »

Lets say Man A walks into a restaurant toilet alone he is there to use the toilet only.

He finds a Phone.

He takes the phone and puts it in his pocket.

He leaves the restaurant and does not approach staff.

He goes home and places the phone in a drawer a few days later Police arrive and arrest him for theft.

On interview he states he was going to put in ad in the local paper the net week.

Guilty of theft or not ? I would say guilty As he has taken no reasonable steps to locate the owner ie asking staff of restaurant.

Agree.

If you find a mobile phone in a pub or restaurant, the only sensible option is to hand it to a member of staff because it's 99% probable that the phone's owner will retrace his/her steps and come back to that premises asking if they found it so I would say in that scenario the person who brought the phone home would have a case to answer for larceny by finding.

Putting an ad. in the local paper is a load of bull.

Zambia

seamus wrote: »

So what you're saying is that if you find anything, the minute you pick it up you are guilty of theft, and we should just leave anything where we've found it?

It falls under the reasonable man test really.

Are the mans action reasonable in the circumstances. He has taken something that is akin to a wallet in importance he would know the owner would require its return soon enough.

Milk & Honey

Zambia wrote: »

It falls under the reasonable man test really.

Are the mans action reasonable in the circumstances. He has taken something that is akin to a wallet in importance he would know the owner would require its return soon enough.

Theft is subjective not objective. If the taking is dishonest it is theft, if it is innocent it is not. The tribunal of fact might be more convinced of the innocence
if the explanation offered in the circumstances is reasonable.

audidiesel

if i was working and someone came in with the phone, id probably take their details for recording of the incident.

id have no intention of trying to initiate a prosecution in this case though. simply as its a reasonable enough excuse.

its not a brilliant excuse and you could easily argue that it should have been handed in before the finder left the country. but i dont think that constitutes theft. especially since upon rediscovery, the finder returns the phone to a garda station.

prosecution would be exceptionally difficult in this case and common sense would indicate that it would be a relatively pointless endeavor.

so in summary, just hand it into a station. you can just say you found it recently if you want. but the important thing is the return of the phone more than anything else.

deman

seamus wrote: »

deman wrote: »

When he took possession of something that didn't belong to him. The owner of the phone may have realised that he'd left the phone in the toilet, went back to get it, but no phone.

So what you're saying is that if you find anything, the minute you pick it up you are guilty of theft, and we should just leave anything where we've found it?

It's not as simple as that. What he should do is inform a member of staff.

Zambia

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Theft is subjective not objective. If the taking is dishonest it is theft, if it is innocent it is not. The tribunal of fact might be more convinced of the innocence
if the explanation offered in the circumstances is reasonable.

I would concur example being if he was in hospital during the period the phone was left in his house.

Lets take it one step further and Police find the original SIM cad has been discarded from the handset?

On interview he states he assumed the owner would not need that anymore as they would have canceled it.