Khross wrote:
She was REQUIRED by LAW to turn the cash into the police. If you keep ignoring that fact ...
No, Khross, she was not.
Section 345.75 requires that the holder of abandoned tangible personal property in Minnesota give 30 day's notice by certified mail or in person to the original owner that it will become the property of the possessor at the end of the 30 days. (Six months after original receipt). If the owner is unknown, publication in the county where the property is to be found will suffice.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT that she report it to the police. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe this property was ever considered abandoned, and therefore subject to any of the above requirements anyhow:
Quote:
"No I am good, you keep it," the woman said, according to the lawsuit.
The money was directly transferred from one person to another. The waitress
chose not to accept transfer of ownership, and instead
voluntarily reported it to the police as abandoned.
Furthermore, even if your fictitious reporting requirement did exist, that wouldn't change the facts that:
A) She did not report it because of any requirement, she reported it because she thought it was suspicious.
B) If she hadn't, the police would never have found out she had the money, and would have had no probable cause to seize it.
C) The police are not responsible for the existence of any law requiring any reporting anything, nor for that matter, any other law so complaining about police action because of what the law dictates is silly.
D) None of this has anything to do with cash registers or wallets, neither of which as examples would constitute found or abandoned property.
The fact is that you're accusing me of ignoring a "fact" which does not exist at all, while ignoring that the examples provided by others do not reflect the circumstances in question. This is yet another case of you A) making proclamations about matters in which you are not in full possession of the facts and B) taking knee-jerk issue with the police simply because they're the police.
You're simply chasing red herrings here, looking for a reason to be outraged.
I suppose this is the part where you attempt to divert the conversation onto the fact that I'm a law enforcement officer, and call into question my relationship with my wife. Please, by all means, get on with it so we can have it over with.