Yesterday morning my 4 month old Blue Pitbull was stolen out of my backyard. My wife walked her grandaughter to the bustop . She was gone 10 minutes and the dog was gone although the other smaller dog was still there. I am so sorry.
Our new neighbors there about 1 week .there 14 year old son just happened to be home from school that morning. After my wife saw the dog missing she asked the new neighbors amd the 14 year old boy told her that the dog got out twice and he put the dog in the backyard. ALL IN TEN MINUTES. My dogs have no way of getting out so I knew he was involved. If you could find evidence, that would very much help your case. What we "know" is not admissible in court unless it comes from one of our senses, such as "I saw...", "I heard...", etc.
That puts my dog in his hands and was the last to see him. By his admission to you, yes, he was the last " known " person to see the dog - unless someone else stole him or he jumped out in a way you are unaware, in which case, someone else has likely seen him after that boy. But I hear your point.
I had my wife file a police report but they did not investigate and told her there was nothing they coulf do. A dog is your property and it warrants an investigation and its there duty Actually, this is a common misconception. the police don't have a legal duty to investigate an incident beyond taking your statement, when in their discretion, investigation would not be an efficient use of their limited resources. As such, unfortunately, you will not find a law that says they have to investigate MORE than recording your wife's statement, even if you scour through the law books.
as an officer of the law. He was the last person to have my dog in his hands by his own omission and the
cops do nothing. Yes, I know that must be frustrating.
My question is the dog is personnel property Answer: Yes.
and the police must investigate the crime or at least try. No. As noted above, the police do not have a duty toward any one individual per se, nor do they have to investigate in a manner an individual would like them to - if there is no witness to the theft, and there is no other evidence of the theft, they need not investigate, since there is likely going to come nothing of it. They ask the kid, the kid lies, they can not prove the theft beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof for crimes, they just wasted thousands of dollars for nothing. That is why they tend to not choose to expend their limited manpower on alleged thefts that #1, there is no admissible evidence of #2, there is likely to remain no admissible evidence, #3 they can't win at trial and #4 the financial value of the missing item is low.
Now, if you can find a local ordinance that requires your town police to investigate, by all means - use it. But your state's laws don't require it. That being said, you DO have options - when the police won't use its resources on our grievance, due to other higher priorities, we can sue the person we believe is liable, in civil court. In this case you can file a claim in small claims court, "You vs. Neighbor kid", get your proofs of who dun it, and present them at trial. You can investigate it yourself, and if you have sufficient proofs by a preponderance of the evidence ("more likely than not") that the neighbor kid stole your dog, you can get a judgment against him for the value of your "property." The standard of proof in a civil case is WAY lower than criminal - thus, you have a far greater chance of proving he is "liable" in your civil lawsuit than a prosecutor would proving him "guilty" of theft in a criminal case.
I hope this helps! My goal is to provide you with excellent and accurate service – if you feel you have gotten anything less, please reply back, I am happy to address follow-up questions. Kindly rate me "excellent" when you are done. I look forward to assisting you in the future, should you have legal questions. Be sure to start future posts with "To Alexia Esq., ONLY" if you want me to specifically answer it.
Your online legal resource!