Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

structuremonkey t1_iyb6hly wrote

So, without reading, I'm assuming car theft was legal before? Seems off...

39

qbanboi t1_iyb71fe wrote

"The proposed ordinance would make it illegal for a person to be standing in a driveway within 20 feet of a vehicle that he or she does not have permission to enter. It would penalize attempted thefts by making it illegal to peer into a vehicle's window, pull on a door handle or use a device that could alert the person to a key fob left in the vehicle"

20

structuremonkey t1_iyb7mud wrote

I read it after my comment... ( i usually get stopped by the app paywall) i think its a slippery slope legally. I agree something needs to be done, but as described in the article it seems weak...but I'm no attorney...

So in theory, a dog walker walks thier dog on my lawn, which happens to me like daily, and happens to be within 20 feet of my car...I can have them arrested?? Hmm....

23

double_chicken OP t1_iybdgv4 wrote

I think you’re right on it being a slippery slope. It seems like it can be used on almost anyone going on a walk.

From what I keep seeing, people either leave their key fobs in their car or leave their cars unlocked. This ordinance could’ve been avoided if people locked their cars and kept their keys with them like they should be doing already.

19

Mysticpoisen t1_iycekkc wrote

We already see arrests of minorities 'acting suspiciously' near vehicles, this just gives them greater justification. Terrible idea.

16

Ryanthecat t1_iyco1ix wrote

That is exactly what this sounds like, just another reason for cops to stop and question anyone they’d like. My suspicion is this has far more to do with additional police overreach than actually trying to help the problem.

5

whatsasimba t1_iyehipi wrote

That's what I was thinking. I live in a very dense little city, with lots of homes that come up to the sidewalk. You can touch people's cars from the sidewalk, not even including street parking.

This feels like some "discretionary" stop and frisk to me.

3

lost_in_life_34 t1_iybe9dp wrote

since you have a business relationship and they are at your home for that then no. if the dog walker comes over at another time like the middle of the night and tries to open your car and you get them on camera, then yes

−5

structuremonkey t1_iybf8ip wrote

No no...ha ha, not a hired dog walker, just the random people on the street...I have so many in my neighborhood that will literally trespass deep into my property because their dog " likes my grass"... I get annoyed if they get between and too close to the cars, ill admit...

there are already tresspass laws, and theft laws on the books. This local ordinance to me seems well intended, but poorly thought through...

4

randygiles t1_iye545n wrote

We don’t need more laws to be selectively applied for harassment. Don’t leave your damn keys in your car people. Let’s have some personal responsibility, these cars aren’t broken into.

4

asecuredlife t1_iyf9b5s wrote

To be clear, the issue here isn't necessarily leaving keys in cars.

1

thirtythr33 t1_iydixas wrote

It’s always been very difficult to prosecute criminal car theft in NJ. How do you prove they intended to steal the car rather than just move it, take it for a joy ride, etc. beyond a reasonable doubt? For that reason the courts usually allow prosecutors to plea it down to far less consequential charges.

1

973reggie t1_iyeh8qf wrote

That’s simply not how these things get adjudicated. Never has someone been let off because they stole a car but said there intended to ‘just move it.’

This isn’t going after car theft per se because the people that would violate this ordinance haven’t stolen anything yet. There’s a reason we have a burden of proof. Every person who peeks thru a window shouldn’t be charged with car theft ..

2