Unreturned VHS Tape 21 Years Ago Leads to Surprise 'Felony Embezzlement' Charge (yahoo.com) 193
"An Oklahoma woman was recently informed that she was charged with felony embezzlement of rented property for not returning a VHS tape over 20 years ago," reports Business Insider:
Caron McBride reportedly rented the "Sabrina The Teenage Witch" tape at a now closed store in Norman, Oklahoma in 1999, according to KOKH-TV. She was charged a year later, in March 2000, after it was not returned, KOKH-TV reported citing documents. McBride was notified about the charge by the Cleveland County District Attorney's Office when she was attempting to change the name of her license after she got married, the news station reported...
"I had lived with a young man, this was over 20 years ago. He had two kids, daughters that were 8, 10, or 11 years old, and I'm thinking he went and got it and didn't take it back or something. I have never watched that show in my entire life, just not my cup of tea. Meanwhile, I'm a wanted felon for a VHS tape," McBride told the news station.
"Documents show the movie was rented at movie place in Norman, Oklahoma, which closed in 2008..." reports one local news station: McBride said over the last 20 years, she's been let go from several jobs without being given a reason why, and said it now all makes sense. "This is why. Because when they ran my criminal background check, all they're seeing is those two words: felony embezzlement," McBride said.
"The DA's office says the charge was filed under a previous district attorney," reports a local Oklahoma station, "and after reviewing the case, they thought it was fit to dismiss it."
But McBride still has to get an attorney to expunge the incident from her record.
"I had lived with a young man, this was over 20 years ago. He had two kids, daughters that were 8, 10, or 11 years old, and I'm thinking he went and got it and didn't take it back or something. I have never watched that show in my entire life, just not my cup of tea. Meanwhile, I'm a wanted felon for a VHS tape," McBride told the news station.
"Documents show the movie was rented at movie place in Norman, Oklahoma, which closed in 2008..." reports one local news station: McBride said over the last 20 years, she's been let go from several jobs without being given a reason why, and said it now all makes sense. "This is why. Because when they ran my criminal background check, all they're seeing is those two words: felony embezzlement," McBride said.
"The DA's office says the charge was filed under a previous district attorney," reports a local Oklahoma station, "and after reviewing the case, they thought it was fit to dismiss it."
But McBride still has to get an attorney to expunge the incident from her record.
I always wondered what society inspired (Score:5, Informative)
Carl Barks writing stories about a billionaire duck going broke because he allegedly didn't fulfill some decades (or centuries) old marginal transactional agreement. Now I know.
Re: I always wondered what society inspired (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I always wondered what society inspired (Score:5, Informative)
The US justice system is messed up. This story isn't even bad in the context of the repulsive shit that goes on.
Re: I always wondered what society inspired (Score:5, Insightful)
I assure you you do not want to live somewhere where there are guaranteed convictions.
Re: I always wondered what society inspired (Score:4, Insightful)
What should boggle your mind are the number of people in this country that feel the conviction is messed up. The number who literally worship police. The number of people who say...loudly "FLOYD DIED OF DRUG OVERDOSE/HEARTATTACK/OTHERTHING".
The fact he possibly might not have been punished isn't mind boggling; the number of people who DEMAND he not be punished is mind boggling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not surprised considering people have spent their entire lives being conditioned by a myriad of police "entertainment", really police propaganda programming. Combine that with news media propaganda and the conditioning goes so far they subconsciously believe and behave like they are on the same team. Anything counter to that narrative of their team they feel is a threat to them so they defend it regardless that they are defying all logic in doing so.
They think they are actually making a difference for the
Re: (Score:3)
Not surprised considering people have spent their entire lives being conditioned by a myriad of police "entertainment", really police propaganda programming. Combine that with news media propaganda and the conditioning goes so far they subconsciously believe and behave like they are on the same team. Anything counter to that narrative of their team they feel is a threat to them so they defend it regardless that they are defying all logic in doing so.
Yeah and that's how we end up in a case where a cop supposedly chokes a suspect to death using his knee in full view of a crowd because he is such a racist bastard, but the coroner doesn't even find a single mark there. Waves of strangulation experts suddenly chime in: "It's possible to strangle someone without making a bruise!"
What we are dealing with in this country isn't a problem with people who think "innocent until proven guilty, even if they are a cop". We're dealing with a situation where a viral v
Re: I always wondered what society inspired (Score:5, Interesting)
It makes perfect sense to me why people would be defending the officer.
The original autopsy report said that Floyd had covid-19 and large amounts of drugs in his system, and this is what killed him. Floyd was also complaining about not being able to breath before the officer had Floyd under his knee. From this point of view, everyone demanding that Chauvin not be punished makes perfect sense. The evidence pushes people to believe that this was yet another case of crying wolf. We've seen a ton of crying-wolf over the last 7 or 8 years, so I think people's mindsets are to automatically dismiss what may be a legitimate claim.
Then the autopsy commissioned by Floyd had called it a "homicide". That sounds like an accusation and not a cause of death. The report had more, but the news reporting on that phrase. Does an accusation sound like a proper medical examination and cause of death, or does it sound like an exaggeration from one that was paid for?
I absolutely think the officer should be punished for involuntary manslaughter, and I agree with the conviction. However, this doesn't change the fact that there are conflicting "facts" and people will still choose to believe the one that makes more sense to them. I can definitely see the original autopsy being chosen by those tired of hearing cases about the wolf that was never there.
Re: (Score:3)
It's literally impossible to cause asphyxiation by putting pressure on the back or side of the neck by a human being.. Not even close. The cervical vertebrae would have to become sperated and guess what wasn't in the autopsy? Even if Chauvin was 300 lbs, was floating in the air so all of his weight of pressed down it still wouldn't asphyxiate Floyd until the spine completely severed and the rest of throat collapsed.
Or did you see Chauvin s knee touching Floyd's ear and just assume there was an invisible par
Need a case for privacy ? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why background checks are an infringement of privacy, and why individual privacy protection is important.
Being let go from jobs, this person's entire course of life has been affected by a rental VHS tape.
Re:Need a case for privacy ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Need a case for privacy ? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why background checks are an infringement of privacy, and why individual privacy protection is important.
Being let go from jobs, this person's entire course of life has been affected by a rental VHS tape.
Where I live (Canada), as far as I know the procedure works like this: an employer asks an employee for a police record search. The employee requests one from the police and provides a copy to the employer.
I get to know when the request is made. I get to know what the results are.
I my case, I've got customers in vulnerable sectors, and some government organizations. I can totally understand a daycare (to make up an example) wanting their IT guys cleared. So I comply. But I would know right away if there had been any kind of a mistake or misunderstanding, were the clearance to come back other than clean.
Re:Need a case for privacy ? (Score:5, Informative)
In some even saner countries the only thing you can request is a certificate that you have or haven't been convicted of a crime relating to a specific job that you're applying for. While I haven't been through this because I believe it is very rarely done, as far as I know the process in the Netherlands would be:
1. Employer fills out details of the application, why they want to know the information and the duties the employee will perform.
2. Employee submits this to the government.
3. Government checks if the criminal record is or isn't relevant to the person requesting the information. E.g. If applying as a professional taxi driver and I have multiple convictions for drunk driving then this will be noted. If I am applying for a job at an accounting firm and I have multiple convictions for drunk driving it is very likely to be omitted.
4. The employee receives their certificate of conduct and can choose whether to give it to the employer.
Re: Need a case for privacy ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live (Canada), as far as I know the procedure works like this: an employer asks an employee for a police record search. The employee requests one from the police and provides a copy to the employer.
Where I am, it's slightly different, but the important part is the same. The employee signs a consent form for the employer to (hire a company to) perform a background check, and you get a copy of the report that's sent back to the employer.
It's Oklahoma, so I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised, but I would hope that in most places, if you're denied a job because of a background check, that has to be disclosed to you. Otherwise, you get situations like this, where someone doesn't even know they were
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the way this whole thing works is terrible. If someone fails a criminal background check because there is a warrant out for them for a felony, any employer running such a check should wonder why they don't immediately get a call from the police to find out what time the suspect arrives for work so that they can arrest them. If someone has an arrest warrant and has not yet been arrested, it should presumably be because the police can not find them. If they have a job with scheduled hours, that's obviou
Re: (Score:2)
In this case though, she was hired for these jobs while the background check was being done, then fired abruptly. You would think that, if you've already hired someone, and then a report comes back basically saying that they have a warrant out for their arrest for a felony, it would be expected that the police will actually be after that person to arrest them. Felonies are supposed to be serious crimes. There should be no felony charges that the police have no interest in heading out to a place they know so
How come a non-returned Video is a felony? (Score:3)
Most countries that would be a civil matter at worst. Only in the USA. (I do wonder if this story is true. But then, it is the USA.)
And in Australia it is of course illegal to ask for a criminal background unless it directly relates to the job. We want our criminals reformed, not back in prison.
When applying for US visas etc. they ask "Have you ever been arrested." Not convicted, arrested. That would be a difficult question to answer if you had been arrested over some trivial matter, but never convict
No Fly List (Score:3)
That, of course, takes the cake. No appeal. No due process. USA.
That said, credit checks have become a lot more intrusive in Australia recently. We do tend to follow the USA.
Re:How come a non-returned Video is a felony? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, in the US I think the way it works is that you have to go through an expensive legal process to get your arrest record expunged if you've been wrongfully arrested, even though you would think that would just happen automatically if it's proven in court. Even after that, it's not clear if you can actually answer "no" to the "have you ever been arrested" question.
Example of this sort of thing that I've experienced myself:
A friend of mine had a traffic fine that he needed to pay by a deadline. I believe it was 5 PM on Friday. He could not get out of work, so I asked me to go in for him to pay the fine. I did so, around noon on Friday. About a week later - I don't remember the exact time frame, could have been a couple of weeks - he was driving down the street and was pulled over and arrested. This was actually while he was driving right past where he lived on the main street of his town and I actually happened to be on the street as it happened. I tried to enquire about what was going on, but was forcefully told to back off by the officer, which is a pity because I was a direct witness to the fact the fine had been paid on time. Of course, I did not know why that was the case, because the police did not say anything about why he was being arrested. So, instead I went and called his father.
Anyway, they hauled him off to jail and we found out that he had been arrested on a "default warrant" issued for non-payment of fines. So, he was kept in jail until his court date the next day. I showed up to the court. I though I might have to testify. He was brought in shackled and chained to a group of people who were also to appear in court that day, and we sat through hours of other cases. It finally got to his case, which only took a couple of minutes. No one specifically said anything about clerical errors, etc. somehow the prosecutor said that the warrant had been issued in error over a fine that had actually been paid before the deadline as if it had somehow happened without an error occurring. The judge was clearly a bit disgusted about it, but made no real comment and dismissed the case. Then he got to sit there through the rest of the court day still shackled and chained until they took everyone back to jail for a while, then they finally released him. I had some sort of odd romanticized view of how the justice system worked back in those days where I believed that simply being found to be completely innocent in court meant that they could not hold you any more and would need to release you. I've since come to understand that people can sometimes spend additional days, weeks, months, or even years in jail or prison, even after they have been legally cleared of all charges.
As far as I know, he's never gone to the trouble of getting the arrest expunged from his record due to the time and expense it would take. I assume he just explains that to prospective employers who have a hiring process where they will actually listen to the explanation rather than just tossing his resume on the discard pile.
GDPR needed ? (Score:3)
I know Americans laugh at the EU for introducing GDPR, and claiming that now Santa cant keep a naughty and nice list etc. etc. But this is exactly why GDPR is needed. This ensures that noone keeps records that are obsolete, that you as the person on the records, have full and complete access to everything recorded about you, and if you are in disagreement with said records, you can ask to have them expunged. Free of charge of course. Even if it's the police holding those records.
Public records are a slightl
Re: (Score:2)
I have a common name so I get to have lots of interesting interactions with US border agents.
They typically ask something like "you ever been in trouble with the law, son?" then scan my passport and go for their guns.
Re: (Score:2)
If you take someone's property and not return it as agreed, that's a criminal offense pretty much everywhere with a functional justice system. It's usually theft, embezzlement or fraud depending on context.
Re: (Score:2)
It becomes theft if the value is large enough, if it's repeat, or in particular contexts, but for things marginal enough of the kind of a non-return videotape, it would be a misdemeanor if anything.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, it sucks, but if employers took the time to study every anomaly in a candidate's background, they'd never hire anyone."
Therefore it's not their business to even try, moreso without the candidate's knowledge both of the process and the results.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but there is still the issue of reciprocation.
Imagine asking the employer for records concerning any judgements made against them, times they've gone to arbitration, etc.. See how well that flies.
This notion that employers are entitled to a fishing expedition as a condition of employment is far too lax with far too few safeguards.
Nevermind the companies that report these things. They should be culpable for whatever they report, given the lax security protocals many have, due diligence isn't exactly th
Re: (Score:2)
Background checks need rights of credit checks (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd want to put the same rules as they have in place for credit checks in for background checks.
Especially if you are denied something because of the results of the check, you should have the right to review what the background check has in it for legitimacy, and to appeal any false information.
Because I've read of shit not only like this, where a mere charge that is still open shows up on it, but I've also heard of background checks that get somebody confused with other people - I mean, I've seen it on my credit reports just for previous addresses - they had some truly wonky addresses in my credit reports, that look like they scanned in a text document and got the lines messed up. So they'd have an address that consisted of bits and pieces of 3 different addresses I've been at (military, so deployment locations ended up as addresses, and those need to be addressed in specific special ways). Thing is, the addresses weren't even consequitive. They'd have two addresses 10 years apart smashed together. Oh, and at some point they thought my dad's name was an alias of mine(no, they aren't the same other than the last name, and I haven't used his name).
But it can be so much worse for background checks. I've read stories(I worked computer security) where the background check got somebody confused with a murderer serving life in prison. But unlike credit checks, it's often actually against the terms of the background check to disclose anything to the person you're investigating, so they have no clue why everybody is declining to hire them until somebody violates the terms and lets them know.
Re:Background checks need rights of credit checks (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially if you are denied something because of the results of the check, you should have the right to review what the background check has in it for legitimacy, and to appeal any false information.
This! Don't underestimate how stupid some records are. I was initially denied a home loan because I had an unpaid phone bill from 3 years earlier. The unpaid bill was for a sum of $0.00 from the "first month free" plan on my mobile phone.
Transparency is essential because data entry errors and poorly programmed computers are unfortunately a thing.
Where I live it's up to you to get the background check and pass it on to the employer. The employer can then verify it afterwards with the government. Also the background check only shows up relevant information. I.e. if I'm applying for a job as a taxi driver it may show that I have been convicted for drunk driving, but it won't show if I've been convicted for wire fraud. Quite the opposite if I apply for an accounting job.
Re: Background checks need rights of credit checks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Charge Credit Card (Score:3)
Don't movie rental places keep on file a credit card or something in case a rental doesn't get returned? The business then just charges the card and the renter gets to keep the movie.
At least that's how it was at an independently operated rental place I used over 2 decades ago. And I believe Blockbuster and Netflix did the same too.
Re:Charge Credit Card (Score:4, Informative)
I see that Redbox does the same [redbox.com] as well.
5. If you keep an item through the maximum rental period, that item is yours to keep and Redbox will charge you the maximum charge for that item. The maximum charge varies depending on the type of item you are renting and the daily rental charge(s) for the item. For example, if a DVD’s daily rental charge is $1.75 and its maximum charge is $29.75, then the maximum rental period for that DVD (before you own it and owe $25.50, plus tax (except for jurisdictions that do not require sales tax to be charged or collected)) is 17 days.
Re: Charge Credit Card (Score:5, Insightful)
Also how is a customer not returning a product worth under $100 a felony or embezzlement.
My guess is legislators trying to be "tough on crime" have turned civil matters into criminal matters. I'm sure private prison owners are thrilled.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably late fees.
A lot of video rental stores would tack on a day of rental for each day it was late.
Over the course of a year, the "$100 tape" would be a $1000++ investment.
Re: (Score:2)
dude you hit the jackpot an late fee & rewind (Score:2)
dude you hit the jackpot an late fee and a rewind fee
Re: (Score:2)
They try and claim lost profits on the property. So years of $3 rentals adds up.
Re: (Score:2)
They try and claim lost profits on the property. So years of $3 rentals adds up.
Then it's too bad it wasn't something like Ishtar [wikipedia.org] she rented and didn't return; they would have owed her money ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
if someone steals a store's cash register, you don't run the store for 20 years then sue for all the money you never were able to make. you replace it in a reasonable amount of time and add the cost of replacing lost equipment and merchandise to the damages suffered.
Re: Charge Credit Card (Score:5, Insightful)
This. Even if she absolutely knowingly did this there would be no way for a VHS tape of Sabrina to be valued at over $1000. The DA that actually filed those charges should be punished for that. If he's already deceased, dig him up and chuck the skeleton in a cell just to make the point.
As you pointy out, in a sane world, this would be a civil matter that should have been handled in small claims.
With nutty things like this happening, it's no wonder people lose confidence in the justice system. The fact that after this disgusting behavior, the state demands that the woman retain a lawyer and sue to make them do the obviously right thing is just the cherry on top. Let me guess, the state will claim some sort of immunity so it doesn't have to pay her entirely unnecessary legal costs to get the record expunged.
Re: Charge Credit Card (Score:4)
This. Even if she absolutely knowingly did this there would be no way for a VHS tape of Sabrina to be valued at over $1000. The DA that actually filed those charges should be punished for that. If he's already deceased, dig him up and chuck the skeleton in a cell just to make the point.
Shit like this is one of the reasons I think there should be some consequences when someone is charged with a crime and later found innocent. This should apply even to a DA. If a DA charges someone with a crime that would send them to prison for a few years, then they are found innocent beyond all reasonable doubt, then maybe that DA needs to spend a few years in prison .
Just in some cases, where the DA files charges on behalf of someone then the DA would be held accountable. For example is someone accuses someone of rape and is going to send them to prison for 20 year. That person is found innocent of the charges then that person that accused him of rape gets to spend the next 20 years sitting in a jail cell.
I am probably being extreme, granted. But there should be some consequences for people actions.
Re: (Score:2)
In many cases, that would be extreme, but it could be justified in cases where the charges were grossly inappropriate for what was alleged to have happened (such as the case in TFA) or when the DA should have known the defendant would be found innocent. Especially for cases where the DA has demonstrated serious misconduct, such as Mike Nifong [wikipedia.org]. Nifong should have served a lot more than 1 day in jail.
Re: (Score:3)
I realize it would a little extreme. I assume that some common sense would be employed but that might be asking to much.
Re: (Score:3)
Given TFA, I'm afraid you might as well ask for the moon in a jar.
Re: (Score:2)
Up-voting via post because I don't have mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
For as awful as this is you should keep in mind that this is like this to prevent abuse. Requiring a judges order to make these changes prevents that rich guy from paying some clerk $50K to re
Re: (Score:3)
So why shouldn't the DA's office petition a judge to expunge the record given that it was the DA's office that screwed up by creating it?
Re: (Score:2)
If $100 was the cutoff line, she could be in trouble. A dear one failed to return a tape for a long time, and the replacement charge was $148. The rental places were scams.
Re: (Score:3)
Qualified immunity needs to be curbed. It makes sense in some cases where professional standards were followed but the outcome was poor, but when standards are violated (such as charging someone with a charge that could never be upheld and/or failing to notify them that there is a charge against them), it shouldn't apply.
Not Qualified, Absolute immunity. (Score:2)
Prosecutors actually have absolute immunity for decisions on initiating prosecution and presenting the case. They only drop down to qualified immunity for things like advising police or talking to the press...
Re: (Score:2)
The price of those rental tapes was above $100 (IIRC, several hundred), due to the license fee demanded by the movie company.
Re: (Score:3)
Still stupid to elevate this to a fel
Age of account (Score:2)
Keep in mind how long ago the charge is from; fewer people back then had credit cards, so a lot of businesses wouldn't actually have that. They often kept a deposit instead.
That said, either there is a lot more to the story, or things really failed with it going to criminal charges. Normally the business would attempt notification about that sort of stuff, but for a place slowly going out of business, I could see them both failing to do due diligence as well as desperate reaching for straws like notifying
Re: (Score:2)
21 years ago was 2000, when quickly looking for information about credit card ownership in that time period i found a federal reserve report that said in 1998 73% of households had at least one credit card and 68% had a bank card , it would only have gone up in the 2 years. So it would be reasonable to assume that it was not uncommon practice then.
Re: (Score:2)
I never had a credit card back when I used to regularly rent movies from a couple of places. Never did a deposit either that I remember. This is in Canada so maybe businesses were more trusting.
no court but an your an felon with out an trile? (Score:2)
no court but an your an felon with out an trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you watch the video, the current DA (they're quick to mention the previous one filed the charges) explains she has to get a lawyer and sue the state of Oklahoma to get the charge dropped from her record. So you're correct, she's not a felon, but she does have that felony charge on her record.
A charge of "felony embezzlement" is pretty much poison to an employer as well. Would any employer know the difference? They'd naturally think she had tried to embezzle money from a previous employer. They'd cert
Re: (Score:3)
Arrest records shouldn't show up on criminal background checks either, innocent until found guilty with lots of cases of mistaken arrests, often through honest mistakes. Even if you go to trial and are acquitted, it shouldn't show up.
Here in Canada, for many crimes it is easy to get a pardon, keep your nose clean for 5-10 years depending on the crime, pay a few hundred dollars and get pardoned. At this point it is actually illegal to discriminate based on the old record. This is so people can continue life
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the words written on paper have nearly anything to do with the reality of enforcement in the US, you would be sadly mistaken.
We are the champions of ignoring our own laws, deliberately misinterpreting them, claiming they mean the exact opposite, and definitely also of justice by social class/physical sexual appearance/physical racial appearance.
There's nothing here that respects the rule of law. This is the rule by beating people over the head with laws capriciously.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm aware of how things are down there, sometimes I get kind of pissed at those who think it is perfect, so I reference the actual law.
Reporting sucks (Score:2)
I think the critical part here was that they waited until she was attempting to change her name to notify her, but it doesn't note WHEN she was notified.
As far as I'm concerned, if they can't bother to actually serve the warrant or even notify somebody that there are charges against them within a reasonable timeframe, the charges should automatically be dropped. Consider here, where she supposedly lost several jobs without knowing why.
I mean, a murder charge hanging around for decades I can kind of underst
Insanity, even when VHS was in its heyday! (Score:3)
I could, technically, have suffered this woman's same fate. Many years ago, I rented a few movies from a local grocery store's video section, including a copy of Star Wars on VHS. I returned them the way they often handled returns; just went in and threw them in a drop-off slot -- and thought nothing else of it.
It must have been about a year later, I received a letter notifying me the Star Wars VHS was never returned and the store suspended my rights to ever rent from their chain again, plus demanded I pay the full replacement cost of the movie.
I'd never gone back there to rent any other movies, so I had no idea anything was wrong until I got that letter. I tore the letter up and ignored it, because their claimed replacement cost was ridiculously high (want to say $149 or $179 or something like that?) and I knew I'd actually returned it anyway. I never heard about it again, and that store went on to get rid of their whole video rental department, like most grocery stores.
But the thing is -- you can't even typically be charged with a felony offense when the worth of what they claim you took is below a certain dollar amount. I know that figure changes and varies by state, but it's totally unreasonable to claim one VHS tape is worth enough to hit that limit.
Re: (Score:2)
That's ludicrous RIAA math, and double-dipping. Late fees and "loss of use" for at most a month until you get the replacement tape you also charge for.... assuming it's even a tape that needs replacing and wasn't the umpteenth copy of last year's blockbuster that everybody since rented (speaking in generalities, not about "Sabrina" specifically).
Late fees are limited (Score:2)
However, most states don't actually allow unlimited late fees. Once a certain level is reached, they just write it off as you having "purchased" the item in question.
Statute of limitations? (Score:2)
I would think this would apply.
But, given the value of the tape, I think someoneâ(TM)s chain is being yanked.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think this would apply.
Nope. The statute of limitations applies to the time between when the crime was committed and when you are charged.
Once you are charged, there is no specific time limit.
She failed to return the tape in 1999. She was charged in 2000.
Constitutionality is still in question (Score:3)
You're right that there isn't a specific time limit, but the constitutionality might be in question. Besides the bill of rights, Oklahoma's constitution specifically mentions the right to a speedy trial - Section II-20. "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the crime shall have been committed"
Now, courts have been known to declare some rather silly stuff, like a multiple year trial for a misdemeanor theft cha
Re: (Score:2)
The right to a speedy trial doesn't apply until you are arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not specific, but isn't there a right to speedy trial? 21 years seems to violate that part of the constitution.
Felony for not returning a VHS tape? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that an example of the viscous nature of the media content industry towards its customers
No. The video store reported her after several warnings to return the tape. That is their right.
The DA, not the store, chose to file felony charges and keep the charges on the books for 20 years.
Similar story (Score:5, Informative)
I have a very common name and three years ago I was denied a specialty state license because of my criminal record... despite my not having a criminal record. It turns out that someone with the same name (common) name as me had spent several years in prison 20 years ago. What made this somewhat unique is that this person had the exact same birthdate.
This state license I needed was special in that pardons and expungements also disqualified the applicant so they were used to getting calls from rejects like me screaming "there's been a mistake!" or whatever since those folks believed "removed from your record" actually meant that. Nothing criminal is ever removed from your record. That licensing entity had heard it all before and nothing I could say would budge them, not even threatening to sue. Luckily I worked for some semi-important people and held a high clearance during the period this other person was in prison so once they stopped laughing they intervened on my behalf. For that one license anyway.
What really upset me was the new doubt about every job I was passed over for in the past several years. How many ran a background check and made the same mistake? What could be done now? Nothing. The state still won't tell me which specific database threw the flag so I could petition to have a note or something placed in it for that name/birthdate.
For at least the past 20 years state/local governments have been digitizing all their records into searchable databases and this is the inevitable result.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like the old saying - if you toss a rock in any direction, you just about can't help but hit a Lugnuts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have the same problem. There is literally 1 person in the USA, in fact the world (as it is a Swiss name, I have checked their DBs), with my exact legal name. However, my first name is not all that common as a legal name, but a common shortening of a longer legal name (think legal name = Jonathon, shortened name = Jon - but I am not giving the actual one). Even for me, I get confused with people who have different legal names in terms of credit reporting, a DUI, and even a prison sentence.
A former boss
Re: (Score:2)
I have a common name. When I go to the US whatever the giant red flag at the top of the file for that name says, it freaks them out so badly they don't bother reading the rest. Birthdate, race, appearance, nah.
Schneier on privacy (Score:2)
He pointed out that the more information others have on you, the more misinformation they will have on you. Your case illustrates his point.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the "Tough on Crime" and "lock 'em up and throw away the key," set of people leading us down this path.
Don't vote for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't think a pardon would still allow you to be disqualified.
Re: (Score:2)
We have lots of disqualifications like that,but they only apply if you're to poor to make noise to well-connected friends.
The system functions as intended. Rules for thee and not for me; we just disguise it with selective enforcement rather than explicitly writing it into the law every time (and to be sure, we write explicitly discriminatory laws too).
Re: (Score:3)
What, are you daft? There's at least 987 of them.
Amateur... (Score:2)
A bunch of friends and myself had a hunch the local rental store was closing so we rented dozens of movies and games between us just before they closed and never returned them.
Quite Rightly... (Score:2)
At least it wasn't The Phantom Menace (Score:2)
That movie jumped the bantha in the first 5 minutes.
Don't let them handle it (Score:2)
Did you rewind the tape, that could be tacked onto the felony charge. This could be on track to pound-me-in-the-@$$ prison, so tread carefully
Video Store Econ (Score:2)
Re: Video Store Econ (Score:2)
"Also, is it me or did the 80's VHS tapes (dating myself a bit here) feel a lot heavier,"
They were, but after tech first gets released, you see cheaper/lower quality versions of the same product get released and displace the older, better versions.
VCR in 1979 - Big heavy beast, built like a fucking tank, mostly metal mechanical parts, probally could survive a direct nuclear strike.
VCR in 2009* - cheap disposable piece of shit full of plastic breakie crap. Deck probally weighs less than the 80's VHS tape you
Fucking hell... (Score:2)
Petty shoplifting or theft, at most.
Let me guess, some tough on crime 'cowboy' slammed her with this charge to make his track record look good, right?
When are we going to hold 'the law' accountable when they put false charges on somebody? Because if we don't, it emboldens them to be corrupt, and ultimately violent. And we get incidents like what happened to George Floyd and cities burn down.
Don't defund the police, just make sure that they know without a doubt that corrupt actions on their part will
At least she can have it removed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> Who gives a fuck if we permanently remove her rights for life? Fuck the bitch, amirite? /s
"She should not be allowed to defend her family against violent home intruders because she didn't return a VHS tape." - America
Also - embezzelment? That word does not mean what the DA thinks it means.
Re: (Score:3)
It does. Embezzlement is theft of a product, object, or service that has been entrusted into your hands by a contract. You do not need to be an employee of the individual you embezzled from (to prevent any ACKSHUALLY bullshit in court over your employment status).
This however should've been treated as petty theft at best.
Re:FP (Score:5, Funny)
This however should've been treated as petty theft at best.
Huh? This had a copy of a movie on it. Do you know the value of a copy of a movie according to the MPAA? She might have spent 21 years showing it to people, public performances without paying the rights holders, worse, she might have lent it out, how many missed sales?
This is not a simple theft like robbing a bank, this is worse and charging her with grand theft should be the minimum.
Re: (Score:3)
You should be asking the *AA's that question, not me who is just being funny.
Embezzelment (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see it as applying, depending on how the law was written. Basically, state laws can vary. It'd be embezzlement because the argument is that she's taking the store's property under false pretenses. Same sort of deal as a store employee with money privileges deliberately making legit-looking but false transfers of money.
In some states it'd be called "conversion", some states would count it as theft, etc...
That said, normally they'd have to prove that she never intended to return the video when she rented it. Otherwise, legally speaking, if she simply forgot or was unable(because it was inadvertently destroyed), it's technically just a civil matter(IE lawsuit). If, as she said, she never rented it, just somebody else in the household, there are even more issues with criminal charges for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for getting the point.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect she was informed many times that the tape needed to be returned, and likely also of the resulting charges filed against her, and she chose to ignore the notices.
Not necessarily. The article says "I had lived with a young man, this was over 20 years ago."
Very likely she had moved out, the notices about the overdue tape went to him, and he was the one who ignored them.
Re: (Score:2)
"My dog ate my court summons" is not a good defense for self-evident reason.