If it wound up in the IMPD property room the owner would never get it back anyway.
OK. Why in the hell was it not reported stolen by the owner. This is an issue with me. A serious one. Way to many loose ends here by what we have so far.
If it wound up in the IMPD property room the owner would never get it back anyway.
Can you quote the IC? I can't find anything related to 34-4-4
Thanks I must have fat fingered 34. I guess that's what I get for typing and eating kangaroo jerkyI think he meant to cite to IC 32-34, the unclaimed property Article of the Indiana Code.
IC 32-34-4-4 is the statutory definition of "vehicle" for unclaimed property law:
[FONT="]IC 32-34-4-4"Vehicle" defined
[/FONT]
[FONT="] Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "vehicle" means a motor vehicle or a watercraft.[/FONT]
[FONT="][Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 32-9-9-4.][/FONT]
[FONT="]As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.19.[/FONT]
I think he meant to cite to IC 32-34, the unclaimed property Article of the Indiana Code.
IC 32-34-4-4 is the statutory definition of "vehicle" for unclaimed property law:
[FONT=&]IC 32-34-4-4"Vehicle" defined
[/FONT]
[FONT=&] Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "vehicle" means a motor vehicle or a watercraft.[/FONT]
[FONT=&][Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 32-9-9-4.][/FONT]
[FONT=&]As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.19.[/FONT]
That's just the start of the IC the definitions section..it later goes on to talk about property left in cars over $50 in value.We arent talking about the car though. He didnt keep a car. He was given something inside the car.
That's just the start of the IC the definitions section..it later goes on to talk about property left in cars over $50 in value.
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
That's my bad. The problem with ,32-34 is it talks about repossessed cars..Gotcha. I kept hitting findlaw, which only displays the exact part of the code. The subsequent parts are behind a paywall. Original post about it wasnt clear.
If it wound up in the IMPD property room the owner would never get it back anyway.
OK. Why in the hell was it not reported stolen by the owner. This is an issue with me. A serious one. Way to many loose ends here by what we have so far.
It's a crime to possess a gun while drinking alcohol.
The only question is was the debtor notified before the 30 day mark prior to becoming the property of the auction house. as outlined in the IC?Sec. 5 . (a) If items of personal property having an estimated aggregate value of at least ten dollars ($10) are discovered within a vehicle that has been lawfully repossessed, the creditor must notify the debtor as follows:
(1) The notice must be written.
(2) The notice must list each item of personal property having an estimated value greater than five dollars ($5).
(3) The notice must include the estimated aggregate value of all of the items of personal property.
(4) The notice must include a statement that if the debtor does not claim the property within thirty (30) days after the notice was sent, the personal property will become the property of the creditor with no right of redemption by the debtor.
(5) The notice must be sent by certified mail.
(b) If the debtor does not claim the items of personal property included in a notice given under subsection (a) not more than thirty (30) days after the notice was mailed, the items of personal property become the property of the creditor with no right of redemption by the debtor.
That shows what the creditor is obligated to do. According to the article, the vehicle was the property of the auction in March, they notified the officer in May, which is past the 30 day mark.
The only question is was the debtor notified before the 30 day mark prior to becoming the property of the auction house. as outlined in the IC?
It's a crime to possess a gun while drinking alcohol.
OK. Why in the hell was it not reported stolen by the owner. This is an issue with me. A serious one. Way to many loose ends here by what we have so far.
If they did their due diligence and sent a certified letter to the owner. But would they be required to send one to the vehicles owner or the guns owner?So, assuming the auction did their job, it becomes their property to do with as they please. Correct?
ThisMaybe it wasn't stolen and the owner doesn't realize it's missing. IIRC from the linked article the car was impounded because it was seized in a DUI case -- maybe Mr. DUI forgot that the gun was in the car, or he figures he lost ownership of everything in the car when it was seized. Or he borrowed it from someone, and either forgot or was to embarrassed to tell them he lost their gun when his car was grabbed.