An email came in yesterday saying simply, “So should your stolen bike or car that is abandoned somewhere in the city be unlawful and should you the owner of stolen property be liable for your stolen property littering the city?”
This person had read my recent blog post “Shopping Cart Diaries #3” where I wrote somewhat facetiously (but not really) that the City and County of Honolulu should create a “Shopping Cart Leash Law”, and make the business owners themselves responsible for making sure their shopping carts don’t leave their property – similar to a dog owner and a leash law.
My response:
“Thank you for the excellent question!
First – if someone steals something, then that’s already against the law, as it obviously should be.
However, if the rightful owner of that stolen object was negligent in securing it in the first place (thus in essence inviting it to be stolen), then the negligent owner bears some responsibility for the harm caused by the stolen object.
This legal principle is used to hold negligent people accountable for their negligence.
So if a stolen shopping cart is left in the middle of the road because it was stolen, both the person stealing it and the person that was negligent in keeping it secure (if that’s the case) share responsibility.
Of course if the owner of the shopping cart made a good faith effort to keep it secure, the degree of negligence and resulting responsibility, would be minimal to nonexistent.
Using the “leash law” example – If the owner of a dog allowed it to wander the neighborhood “unleashed”, and the dog was subsequently befriended and adopted by another neighbor or person passing by – that person would not be seen as “stealing” the dog.
And if that dog then did something bad, both it’s new “adopted owner” and the owner that failed to keep it on a leash, could be responsible.
The original owner of the dog is responsible for keeping the dog in their yard and/or on a leash, with a collar, and that collar could have a GPS monitor and or other mechanisms to locate the dog, and or keep it from wandering out of the yard.
And if someone did come into the yard and actually “stole” the dog, took the dog down the street and abandoned it, and then someone else came along and adopted the same loose dog – this second person was simply taking care of an abandoned dog and did not steal it.
Think shopping carts. Same.
Yes, it’s complicated.
If the primary objective is to protect shopping carts, and the public from their misuse, the first and most important step in the process is to require shopping cart owners to better secure and manage their own property.
I’ve been in supermarkets that require small deposits, returned when you return the cart. Others have people outside at the entry to the parking lot, actively monitoring, collecting, and returning the carts. Locking wheels and GPS are increasingly common.
It’s already against the law to steal a shopping cart. Piling on additional criminal charges and the resulting expense to the poorest people in our community, AND the taxpayer expense of police, attorneys and courts – doesn’t make sense on many levels.
Mahalo for being part of this conversation.
Sincerely,
Gary Hooser
To readers and community: Please read up on Bill 53 (I’ve posted several pieces on my garyhooser blog “Shopping Cart Diaries #1, #2, #3 and now today #4). The ACLU is also deeply engaged in this issue.
Please, it’s oh so important that you email TODAY, Council Member Esther Kia‘aina ekiaaina@honolulu.gov AND Council Member Matt Weyer mweyer@honolulu.gov and tell them both, MAHALO for voting NO, on Bill 53!
Please also email the other Honolulu City Council members listed below and ask them politely and professionally of course, – to please reconsider their support for Bill 53 and Vote NO.
Andria Tupola
atupola@honolulu.gov
Tommy Waters (Council Chair)
tommy.waters@honolulu.gov
Scott Nishimoto
snishimoto@honolulu.gov
Tyler Dos Santos-Tam
tdossantos-tam@honolulu.gov
Val Aquino Okimoto
valokimoto@honolulu.gov
Augie Tulba
atulba@honolulu.gov
Bottom line message for the Council Members AND to ALL –
We’re all in this together.
Let’s figure out a way together, to solve our many challenges without further hurting our brothers and sisters who sit at the very bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.
Let’s focus our energy instead, on offering them a hand up.
Gary Hooser
Screenshot
Dear Senator:
I respectfully disagree. I continue to believe this is a good bill.
The main reason is because the current statute relating to theft does not work with shopping carts. At the point where a police officer finds a person away from the shopping property, like a park across the street, there is nothing on the cart (usually) to indicate the owner of the cart or whether the person with the cart had the owner’s express permission to be using the cart away from the shop. Unlike a bicycle, the owners of carts are not required to affix a license or permit onto the cart to allow law enforcement to identify the owner. In addition, there is no law in existence that permits the use of a cart solely on the owner’s property. So when law enforcement sees a cart away from the property, that in itself is not a violation (thought it might be construed as littering).
To automatically say that theft is already on the books ignores the fact that there are a lot of carts that are lost or stolen and nothing is being done about it.
The problem with your position is that you are saying that nothing should be done and shop owners should just live with it. As I see it, that approach is not acceptable.
As always, I respect your passion and appreciate your willingness to hear all sides to an issue, including those that oppose your own.
E
Actually I’m absolutely not saying “nothing should be done”. What I’m saying is the owners need to take responsibility and make sure the owner of the carts name and contact information is on the cart at the minimum AND to take the steps needed to minimize the loss of their carts, such as “locking wheels” etc. That is the first step is owners taking responsibility…just like the “leash law” – And perhaps that’s how the proposed Bill 533 should be amended: Require the owners to label the carts, require them to have locking wheel capability and other devices/elements to minimize there loss. The owner of the shopping cart should be responsible for the basics first and foremost. I’m not saying shop owners should just “live with it” but I am saying that shop owners should take responsibility for doing the basics to prevent their property from becoming a public nuisance. My main wish is that the Honolulu City Council would address the many different aspects of the homeless/houseless issue – the lack of “Safe Zones” or adequate shelter in addition to regular affordable housing…the lack of mental health and substance abuse treatment centers and outreach…and many other things that could be addressed…instead of focusing their energy on protecting the owners of shopping carts…Mahalo for engaging the conversation.
Well stated. Seems like such a small issue, but is truly representative of our culture on so many levels. Whose values should be applied in this case? The Law? Christian values? Corporate values? Hawaiian values?
Now would be a good time to pull out some Hawaiian values to apply to this case.
Mahalo Richard…how’s this for starters?
I’m actually working on a proposed ordinance that reflects these values pretty directly.
“Hawaiʻi State Constitution Article IX, Section 10. The law of the splintered paddle, mamala-hoe kanawai, decreed by Kamehameha I – Let every elderly person, woman and child lie by the roadside in safety – shall be a unique and living symbol of the State’s concern for public safety.”
Yes! That is what Iʻm talking about. Right on.
But isnt that what this bill seeks to do? Doesnt the bill make it a violation to take a shopping cart off the shops property without the owner’s express permission? That would automatically make possession of a cart away from the shop owners property a violation and at the very minimum allow law enforcement to confiscate the cart and return it to the owner.
If the intention is to help shop owners, this bill seems on point and could help a lot.
If however, the point should be to allow certain individuals to steal private property because they are underserved because the owners can afford it, in my opinion, that goes against the whole notion of applying laws to everyone and not give special treatment to any particular group.
And lets not forget, eneryone, not just the rich, pays. The costs of getting special carts or security systems will be embedded in higher prices on goods. Costs are already so high for most of us. So the family of six working multiple jobs will have even less purchasing power to buy food and medicine to survive.
Something to think about.
E
Property versus people. Me versus them. Law versus kindness. Corporations over all.
Hereʻs a couple ideas: kuleana and aloha.
Am not sure the back and forth is getting us anywhere…but I’ll try, you just said “That would automatically make possession of a cart away from the shop owners property a violation and at the very minimum allow law enforcement to confiscate the cart and return it to the owner.” Possession of a cart does not equate to proof that the person stole the cart. Please maybe reread the post I wrote? I talked about this and how just because someone befriends a dog that was illegally “unleashed” does not mean the person stole the dog. Ditto to the shopping cart. Why are you opposed to requiring the owners to properly label the carts with the name of the business and contact information, AND requiring locking wheels, And requiring the owner of the carts to monitor their use in order to limit the carts that leave the premises? AND…I agree everyone pays when the government is required to do this kind of enforcement…all taxpayers pay…not just those that shop in a particular store…but everyone pays whether you shop in those stores or not.