Georgia Public Defender, Alexia Dawn Davis, 31, has found herself facing a relatively rare charge for failing to take steps to return a diamond ring that she found in a parking lot. Davis is charged with theft of lost or mislaid property after she kept the ring for two weeks before taking it to the police in Augusta.
The ring was found outside of a Cracker Barrel in the parking lot on February 7th. The ring belonged to Jane G. Prater, 62, who reported it missing on February 12th. The ring is worth about $10,500.
When Davis found the ring, her companion went back into the restaurant and asked what she should do if she found a ring. The server suggested the manager but the woman said that she would keep the ring and call the police. No call was made.
When the ring was reported missing, the sheriff recovered security surveillance footage and released it to the public on February 19th to try to identify the finder. That same day as the release of the security footage, Davis went to the police with the ring. They then charged her with theft of lost or mislaid property — a felony for any item worth more than $1,500.
Here is the applicable standard:
16-8-6. Theft of lost or mislaid property
A person commits the offense of theft of lost or mislaid property when he comes into control of property that he knows or learns to have been lost or mislaid and appropriates the property to his own use without first taking reasonable measures to restore the property to the owner. – See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/georgia/title-16/chapter-8/article-1/16-8-6#sthash.nli8bOEe.dpuf
The question is one of intent and the meaning of “taking reasonable measures.” Here David does not appear to have taken measures for two weeks, but the law does not state a time period in which to act.
Davis now has found four lawyers to represent her. What is interesting is that the defense admits that it was the release of the video that prompted Davis to go to the police but insists that it was only at that point that she knew of the owner’s identity:
“No matter what shadow the Sheriff and the District Attorney’s office tries to cast upon Ms. Davis’ impeccable reputation and her motives, the legal fact is that she did not appropriate the ring for her own use, which is the crime this statute is intending to cover. When she learned who the owner was through the postings online from the Sheriff’s office, she promptly turned it in. She knew it was valuable but she had neither sold it nor wore the ring as if it was hers.”
Below is the full statement.
The prosecutors are likely to argue that Davis returned the ring to the police not the woman once she knew the name of the woman — something she could have done at any time. Indeed, her companion reportedly said the police would be notified. Local prosecutors will now prosecute a local public defender in the case. The jury will have to determine intent. It is interesting that she is not arguing the most obvious defense that she is a busy litigator and never got around to taking the ring into police. The claim that she was waiting to “learn” the identity of the owner could break down in court if she took no steps to learn the identity but waited for it to occur spontaneously. It would be useful if she could show that she called the restaurant in the interim, but that key fact is not mentioned by her lawyers.
What do you think? Was too weeks too long to wait in your view?
Here is the statement from the defense team:
“We are issuing this statement in response to calls and information that we have received regarding the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office statement about the law on Theft of Lost or Mislaid Property and the case involving our client Ms. Alexia Davis. It is my understanding that the Sheriff’s office has indicated that the law requires a person to make reasonable efforts to find the owner of the property and they arrested Ms. Davis because they feel that she did not make reasonable efforts to find the owner, and only turned it in when they posted the information about the lost ring online.
The law states that “a person commits the offense of theft of lost or mislaid property when he comes into control of property that he knows or learns to have been lost or mislaid and appropriates the property to his own use without first taking reasonable measures to restore the property to the owner.” O.C.G.A. 16-8-6. Every word in a statute has meaning. The important part of the law that is not being discussed is that one must “appropriate the property to his own use” to commit the crime. Possession of the property is a separate element from the appropriation part, which means that mere possession of the property is not sufficient to constitute a crime when the person restores the property to the owner in its original state. Who wants an average citizen, or for example a young person, to think that if he/she finds something and leaves it in his/her locker or car for a week, and then someone posts an ad looking for the item, the person dare not turn it in to the owner because they then have to fear being arrested. That is why there is an appropriation to one’s own use requirement. The taking reasonable measures to restore it to the owner is a defense to the appropriation element, and is not necessary when the owner actually gets their property back as soon as the person becomes aware of his/her identity. No crime has occurred. The law should encourage people to come forward and do the right thing and to not feel afraid. The statute does not define what is reasonable. The statute does not require a person to turn anything into the Sheriff’s office, and it does not set a time limit.
The warrant in this case leaves out the critical fact that the ring was restored to the owner and had not been altered, changed, sold or worn. Ms. Davis was offered money for the ring but did not sell it. She wanted to know if it was real only. If she had sold the ring, like some people may have done when given the opportunity, then this would be a crime because she would have appropriated it for her own use. She talked to a Richmond County jailer about finding lost property and was told she should check the newspaper, lost and found ads, and not advertise because she would get all kinds of people calling her. What the jailer said would happen actually occurred. When Columbia County posted that the ring was lost at the Cracker Barrel, she then knew who the owner was and returned it.
Most importantly, when considering the reasonableness of a person’s effort to restore lost property to an owner, how much more reasonable can the effort be than that the person promptly turns the property in when he/she learns the identity of the owner. This law should be meant to deter crime and promote honesty, not fear of turning something in as we read the law. This is of course our interpretation of the law, and not that of the officer who took out the warrant and the associate magistrate, who is not a lawyer, who actually issued the warrant. Ms. Davis’ impeccable reputation and career are at stake in this case, and her legal team hopes that this statement helps clarify what we believe to be the law regarding finding mislaid or lost property. We are continuing to prepare this case for trial.”
Source: Chroncile
Bron:
” I think many women, especially those who have never read Emily Post’s advice to give the ring back if the engagement is broken, would sell the ring and use the money. Not that I would blame them if Bob was porkin their sister.”
*************
It’s that age-old problem about whether the ring is a conditional or unconditional gift. The courts are split, but not me. If you “give” it; it’s gone.
The Agusta Georgia Sheriff is the first black elected in 230 years.
Mespo:
that is a bit too hypothetical. I think many women, especially those who have never read Emily Post’s advice to give the ring back if the engagement is broken, would sell the ring and use the money. Not that I would blame them if Bob was porkin their sister.
“By the way, what is she owed for finder’s fee and safeguarding the valuable item for 2 weeks?”
😀 Good point.
I’m not confused in the slightest.
You’re the one who mentioned abandonment and it overplayed your hand.
You are making an assumption of guilt without sufficient evidence of mens rea. You haven’t highlighted jackshit that’s relevant, only stating your opinion that the timing is an indication of guilt. Had the police discovered the ring incidental to an otherwise legal search? It would be proper to infer mens rea but even then you need to prove it in court. The bottom line is she turned over the ring voluntarily. When or why (which is pure supposition on your part unless you’re psychic) is irrelevant to that very action being indicative she had no intention of theft.
It’s not my fault you suck at argumentation.
balanced:
“But of course your definition of a thief is simply a popular one, there is of course the statute which we have here to define it for us.”
“It is bad public policy and simply morally wrong to allow people to squirrel away things they come across that clearly do not belong to them and then put the complete burden on the owner of somehow discovering the location of and recovering the item.”
***********************
Well, it’s likely “popular” because it’s true. Bottom line, this is your moralistic view of criminal law (as you acknowledge) and not sound public policy as you assert. If you think the law is about Christian morality, you’d best think again.
As Gene H says, larceny requires some criminal mens rea to steal. Finding a ring in a parking lot does not suggest anything approaching a mens rea for criminal conduct. Neither does taking it home after notifying the owner of the locus in quo. There are many scenarios which involve neither a lost item nor one the owner’s wants back . For instance: “Bob, you bastard! You’re going out with my sister. Here’s what I think of your damn engagement ring!!’ or “Grandma, I can never wear your engagement ring again now that you’re gone. It reminds me of you and that’s too painful. I want someone else to have it who might need it.” Trying to glean human intent from obscure facts is quite problematic indeed.
We need to quit criminalizing everything somebody does that could potentially inure to their benefit and to someone else’s detriment. This is Puritan justice pure and simple. Exactly what I would expect from our Bible Belt brethren.
By the way, what is she owed for finder’s fee and safeguarding the valuable item for 2 weeks?
Bron,
Okay. But I think she has to come off of the public payroll, at least in her current jurisdiction.
Gene,
I definitely did not put my foot in my mouth (the abandonment issue is irrelevant and apparently only confuses you). There is plenty of evidence of mens rea for all the reasons I have highlighted from the facts.
The only time that the defendant acts reasonably is two weeks later when there is video evidence of the loss (and perhaps even her picking up the ring). It is at that point that she quickly surrenders any information that she had possession of it.
Balanced:
You make a good case for her wanting to keep the ring. But since she did give it up, why not just take her age into account and give her the benefit of the doubt?
Just because you are a lawyer doesnt mean you are perfect or should have to be. Let the market sort out this type of thing.
After hearing this story, many people would be reluctant to use her as a lawyer for any thing involving finances.
I think it’s questionable whether she “took reasonable measures” but I’m persuaded by her lawyer’s argument that she never “appropriated” the ring. I’m not so sure she’s morally innocent, but even so, I’m hardly outraged by her conduct or think it deserves anything close to a felony charge. I’d think prosecutors and police have more important things to do than try to screw up her entire life over such a weak claim.
“You can strike the abandonment comment and just focus on the probable mens rea given the facts and I think that her conduct reveals a guilty mind.”
Or you can own it and accept that you put your foot in your mouth by your assumption of mens rea absent sufficient proof.
Bron,
You’re creating a hypothetical, but okay.
Ms. Davis simply had to give her contact details to the manager, not the ring.
I don’t disagree that the police can be less than trustworthy, and even vindictive, which is even more reason to at least give notice that she is in possession of a lost ring since the police (and the manager) are the most likely sources the owner of the ring would contact for help in finding it.
Regarding an ad in the paper, why not run a “found” ad instead of waiting for a “lost” one? Why not put notice on Craig’s list? She didn’t have to pick up the ring. She assumed a burden in doing so. In consideration for making reasonable efforts to find the owner, she might ultimately gain ownership of the ring if it proves to abandoned. Most of us probably don’t want to burden our lives any more when we find a another’s property so we try to turn custody over to a reasonable party, like the restaurant manager. Or we simply do not interfere other than maybe asking nearby patrons if they have lost something.
It is bad public policy and simply morally wrong to allow people to squirrel away things they come across that clearly do not belong to them and then put the complete burden on the owner of somehow discovering the location of and recovering the item. You create a slippery slope of larceny when you start making excuses for people to not to make reasonable efforts to find owners of property that the “finder” has chosen to take into her possession.
Lastly, I generally like to give people the benefit of the doubt too. But in this case, given the facts as they are now, I have no doubt. Ms. Davis had no reason not to give her contact details to the restaurant. There was no reason not to immediately notify police, as she said she was going to do. There was no reason for an ATTORNEY not to act reasonably.
Balanced:
What if she or her companion deemed the manager untrustworthy? And since she is a Public Defender she has probably seen the police at less than their best. My father in law is a lawyer and he says the police lie more than his clients do.
Given that knowledge, she might have felt the best way to return the ring was to hold onto it and wait for an ad in the local paper or to hear about it during the course of her work.
I say give the lady the benefit of the doubt.
Mike,
Given an otherwise clean record, I don’t think prison would be appropriate for this defendant. Disbarment.
Gene,
My mentioning abandonment really has nothing to do with the theft and the mens rea. I mention the concept of abandonment simply as a likely theory she was formulating to assert legal possession of the ring in the future.
You can strike the abandonment comment and just focus on the probable mens rea given the facts and I think that her conduct reveals a guilty mind.
Even if so, hoping for abandonment is not the equivalent of the mens rea to theft, Un.
What Riesling describes above is precisely what we all would consider reasonable conduct.
Finding the ring at the restaurant and not notifying anyone that you were in possession of a lost ring is obvious intent to conceal. And when the friend chose not to disclose to the restaurant, but rather said they would contact police, but didn’t even after two weeks, the motive becomes even more suspicious.
To suggest that when it is disclosed that there is surveillance video, her decision to return it negates the mens rea is absurd. She was hoping for abandonment.
I would suppose the “balanced” viewpoint would be prison time as well.
My daughter actually lost a valuable ring at a Cracker Barrel in WV. We called the Cracker Barrel from home (far away), once she realised that it was the last place she remembered having seen the ring on her finger. This was a week later. The manager had the ring, which a customer had found while trying on a pair of gloves. He sent it to us by registered mail. Thank you again, Cracker Barrel!
Bogus charge.
“This sounds like a “no harm, no foul” situation to me, and it makes me wonder, given that she’s a PD, whether someone in the prosecutor’s office is settling a score.”
I agree with Mel J., AY and Gene on this. Her being a PD and Black is what this is all about. Give the snail’s pace of justice in our system two weeks is not an unreasonable waiting period.