pryan67
Forum Supporter
Good input. Thanx for adding that.
Interesting indeed. It sets no value criteria for which "reasonable measures" is to be invoked. And instead seems to just cover ALL property. And it leave open to ambiguous interpretation what "reasonable measures" are. I mean, ... gee.... someone can abuse that easily.
For example: What if I think "reasonable measures" is to pin a note to any nearby telephone pole, saying "found ring. Call such & such ph. # to identify"
(knowing full well that the right person is not likely to see that paper pinned to a pole).
Does our ability to find a jeweler, who has microscopes capable of reading micro-engraving, constitute "reasonable measures" ? In the example of my friend , who failed to take any measure whatsoever, can't he just say "I didn't know there was such #'s on there" ?
When I researched CA's L&F laws years ago, it simply sets a value threshold. And just says to turn them in to the police. It does NOT give YOU AND I the latitude to make our own repatriation attempts (eg.: run a "found" ad on CL, or pin a note to a telephone pole, etc...). And the lawyer I talked to about this, said that there was good reason for this. Because otherwise, unscrupulous persons could make feeble efforts, that are meant to thwart finding an actual owner, for the intent of just keeping it.
I ran into this myself, when I ran a "found" ad once. A lady officer from the beach-side resort town I'd run the ad in, answered my ad. Asking if my item matched such & such description. Turns out, my item did not match the description. So I replied back "Sorry, not the right description". But this is where it got funky : She had apparently seen my reference to "found with metal detector". And she replied back a 3rd time and said ".... In the future, please bring anything you find to the police station. If the station is closed, there is a night-drop box slot on the door. In order to be in compliance with the law.... "
That last part (in bold italics) had me scratching my head. So I began to do research on the subject. And it was then, that I realized, that ... *technically*, ... we are all running afoul of this. I will be very careful about ever running a "found" ad again (at least in that city's CL , doh! )
I almost (but not quite) wish they'd define "reasonable"....but as you and I both know, if they DID do that, it would be very UNreasonable.
I would think (hope) that the courts would use the RPP standard. for example, you putting a CL ad in, or something in the local paper, would be considered "reasonable effort" by a reasonable, prudent person...of course there's no guarantee of that. They may consider it "reasonable" to put an ad in EVERY paper within 60 miles, for a period of a month, at your expense...or, if found at a popular ocean beach right after spring break, pu an ad in EVERY paper, nationwide, for 6 months.