Finders Keepers? Not always!

[roswellborn]

Apparently this wasn't metal detecting, but it so easily could have been. Just somethin' to be aware of, y'all.

I'm not overfond of posting an entire article, but this really needs to be read in its entirety so's you get all the facts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071127/ap_on_fe_st/odd_finders_keepers

Pair learn finders not always keepers

Mon Nov 26, 11:01 PM ET

SALEM, Ore. - A pair of Salem residents learned the hard way that finders are not always keepers. Lonnie Anderson, 47, and Jacqueline Shimmin, 37, were arrested last week failing to return a lost ring. Each faces a charge of first-degree aggravated theft of lost or mislaid property, said Sgt. Albert Gordon of the Salem Police Department.

Oregon law states someone must make a reasonable attempt to return lost property to its rightful owner. The property may be kept if no one comes forward in 30 days.

(and the rest of the story
"It's a universal law," Gordon said. "If you find something, you need to make some effort to return it to the rightful owner."

Gordon said a reasonable attempt would include posting an advertisement or bringing it to police. The law applies especially to property of high value or unique design, Gordon said.

The large, emerald-cut diamond ring was lost at a Salem grocery store on Nov. 15. That same day, a man and a woman brought a ring to the jewelry department at a Fred Meyer store, requesting an appraisal.

Fred Meyer employees said the appraisal would take a few days. The man and woman filled out paperwork but left with the ring, Gordon said.

Meanwhile, on Nov. 17, Nov. 18 and Nov. 19, a classified ad ran in the Statesman Journal newspaper: "LOST Large Diamond Ring: Generous Reward."

One woman connected the dots. She saw the ad and told detectives that she heard a story from a friend about two people finding a ring and taking it to a Fred Meyer store.

Detectives tracked down the person who placed the ad, then went to Fred Meyer. Detectives were convinced they were dealing with the same ring.

Detectives then found the pair who had requested the appraisal.

It didn't take long for them to admit they had the lost ring, Gordon said. He noted that they also acknowledged seeing the newspaper advertisement.

Police declined to say how much the ring was worth, but the charges Anderson and Shimmin face apply to items worth more than $10,000.

___

Information from: Statesman Journal, http://www.statesmanjournal.com

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

thanx for the interesting article. Hmmm, I hope there's no laws like that in CA! But for you Oregon guys, no doubt you'll be bringing in anything valuable you find to the police station now, right?? That includes old coins of value. Heck, you never know! Maybe it was just lost out of a collection yesterday. Wouldn't want to face charges would you? Now go do the right thing

 

[john37115]

I hate to take the honest approach BUT I would definately try to find the rightfull owners. I would think if the ring were found the same day or a few days after just laying there on top of the ground it would be obvious someone had just lost it and would probably want it back and most likely be willing to pay a reward. Not that I would be motivated by a reward. My reward would be seeing someone smile. I think if a ring was buried 4"-5" deep and had obviously been there for years, I might then think it might be difficult to locate the owner.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

John, what if it was an "un-determined" length of time that it'd been lost? Like: a plowed field, the beach after a storm, etc... Ie.: places where there is no "context". Do you try to find the rightful owners then? Do you take the "high road" and err on the side-of-safety that it might have been lost yesterday?

Heck, I don't think the law, in this link, even makes exceptions for "long lost" items anyhow.

I know a guy who found a class ring, traced the owner, and left a message on their voicemail to the effect: "did you loose a class ring? I have it hear. Call me to discuss getting it back" (or something to that effect). Guess who showed up at his door that night during his family's dinner time? The POLICE! In retrospect, he wished he'd just hawked it for melt value. Now I know this story doesn't enter is 1) how deep was it or was it a current loss? 2) was it lost or stolen (or does the owner even know), etc... But it seems like the law of the land doesn't really care about those things. Whether it's a week, or a month, or a year, doesn't it still belong the person who lost it?

 

[john37115]

Tom I see your point. BUT what if you had just lost your expensive ring and you found out the very same day someone had recovered it and was out trying to hock it.
Honestly, do you think you would be pissed, and wouldn't you hope the law would be on your side? It's a double edged sword. If I had found the ring or any personal item for that matter lying there on top of the ground or asphalt at this grocery store as stated in this article, I would have exhausted every effort to return it to the rightful owner. Where would you draw the line? Where do you think the law should draw the line?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

John, you say: "Where would you draw the line? Where do you think the law should draw the line? "

Yes, that's exactly my point. It would only be us, the finders, making the judgement "aha, this might have been lost yesterday". I've found coins from the 1800s where I could actually see them in a furroughed field, before I even bent over to retreive it. And I've dug clad at a foot deep

Now if a ring, for instance, was found in a furroughed field, I could "assume" it was lost a week ago (right before the most current plowing), or I could assume it was an older loss. Either way, the law cited in the Oregon link didn't seem to make any allowance for the finder's "assumptions". I guess to fully comply with the law, you'd have to turn it in, and wait a specified amount of time to see if anyone claims it?

And even antique jewelry wasn't necessarily lost long ago. My wife wears a ring from the 1930s ........ an heirloom passed down through the family from her mom.

I have returned class rings from as far back as the early 1960s. When reunited, they would say it'd been gone for 40+ yrs. Wierd to think that...... you wonder if ..... in the eyes of the person to whom it belonged, if they somehow knew you were hawking it (like, maybe the guy at the smelt buy-place looks up the initials?), could they be mad? Bear in mind that a lot of people who think a ring was "stolen", may have actually lost it. You know how often ladies leave a ring on the sink in a public restroom, right? But think about it: if a lady looses a ring at the beach, without even knowing it slipped off her finger. Then later, she gets home, and realizes it's gone. She thinks back and wonders "did I leave it on the sink in the restroom?" I think that "stolen" is a common conclusion, even in cases where it's truly a fumble-fingers loss. And even in cases of where they admit to true fumble fingers loss, they might still assume that someone who finds it, and doesn't return it, has thus "stolen" it.

And to add more misery to this kill-joy pondering: A lot of high end stones in rings today are being made with micro-laser engraving (not visible to the naked eye - only visible under a jewelers scope). Insurers are sometimes requiring this for more expensive stones. So I guess those would be un-hawkable EVER, because they can always be traced (even if only to the next of kin 20 or 30 yrs. from now). Weird.

 

[roswellborn]

I think what got me most was that the couple knew about the ad. Near the end of the article it says "they also acknowledged seeing the newspaper advertisement." I think if they'd called the minute they saw the ad, maybe they wouldn't be in the trouble they're in now. Who knows?

It's a really fuzzy line, ain't it?

HH
Nan

 

[Ant]

thanx for the interesting article. Hmmm, I hope there's no laws like that in CA! But for you Oregon guys, no doubt you'll be bringing in anything valuable you find to the police station now, right?? That includes old coins of value. Heck, you never know! Maybe it was just lost out of a collection yesterday. Wouldn't want to face charges would you? Now go do the right thing

Well if you did't know. What do you think now?
And by the way I'm glad I don't find many items over $100.00.


Look it up.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hey Ant, thanx for the info. @ CA's laws. I bet similar wording could be found in ANY state, eh? Notice the value mark set for needing to "turn stuff in to the authorities", is $100. So basically, that'd be things like key date barbers, trade tokens with a collectible value of that much or more, gold rings worth $100 or more, etc....

Of course, I know you'll be running to the police station everytime you find something of value like this now, right?

 

[Ant]

Hey Ant, thanx for the info. @ CA's laws. I bet similar wording could be found in ANY state, eh? Notice the value mark set for needing to "turn stuff in to the authorities", is $100. So basically, that'd be things like key date barbers, trade tokens with a collectible value of that much or more, gold rings worth $100 or more, etc....

Of course, I know you'll be running to the police station everytime you find something of value like this now, right?

Yeap, but I might have to start calling and showing up a little more often than I do now, that is if gold keeps going up, .

HH