This morning I received a private message on Facebook asking me this:
WHY IS IT THAT AJ STILL HAS TO DEAL WITH THE COURTS TO HAVE PROPERTY RETURNED????
This is a question I’m sure many people are asking in answer is very simple but strange.
The Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office as a policy that they do not return seized property even after an acquittal in a case. This fact was brought out by Marlisa Ferreira during one of the hearings where it was discussed about returning some of Georgia DeFilippo’s property after she was not held to answer.
Deputy DA Marlisa Ferreira stated in court on the record that the District Attorney’s Office as a standing policy they do not return property after a case has been adjudicated even when there’s an acquittal.
So even in AJ Pontillo’s case that has been adjudicated for almost 2 years where he was fully acquitted, and the property was seized I believe in 2008. This property was seized by Stanislaus County district attorney investigators and the same investigators also “double badge” as federal officers and attach themselves to agencies like the FBI, DEA, and ICE etc.
This gives them a large amount of federal resources that there is not available on the local level. This also means then they are federal officers they also have the ability to retrieve that same property that the DAs office is claiming to be in federal jurisdiction now, at least in AJ’s case.
California Penal Code Section 487 PC: Grand Theft
1. Definition and Elements of the Crime
- The theft involves a loss in excess of $950
- The item stolen is a car or a gun
- OR the item stolen was physically and directly taken off of a person.
In many cases, grand theft may be shoplifting where the sum of the items taken exceeds $950. This is fairly common in many higher-end luxury department stores, where stealing a few articles of clothing can easily result in grand theft by larceny charges. To prove grand theft by larceny, the following elements must be present:
- The defendant took someone else’s property.
- He or she did so without the owner’s consent
- The defendant intended to take this property away from the true owner when he or she seized it
- The defendant moved or kept the property or with the intent to permanently deprive.
AND the value of the property exceeded $950, the property was a firearm or automobile, OR the property was taken directly off the person of someone else.