Mdthbs

What is the purpose of the fuel shutoff valve?

Sextortion with actual password not found in leaks

Spoken encryption

Current relevance: "She has broken her leg" vs. "She broke her leg yesterday"

Is it legal for private citizens to "impound" e-scooters?

Determine if a triangle is equilateral, isosceles, or scalene

Closet Wall, is it Load Bearing?

Why is chess failing to attract big name sponsors?

Why do people say "I am broke" instead of "I am broken"?

How can I prevent corporations from growing their own workforce?

What is the difference between $path and $PATH (lowercase versus uppercase) with zsh?

Why are off grid solar setups only 12, 24, 48 VDC?

Passing lines from the text file of a list of files to or as arguments

Terence Tao - type books in other fields?

Is it normal practice to screen share with a client?

Why is a dedicated QA team member necessary?

USA: Can a witness take the 5th to avoid perjury?

How much damage does a magic stone cause when hurled from a sling?

No-cloning theorem does not seem precise

Inadvertently nuked my disk permission structure - why?

The seven story archetypes. Are they truly all of them?

Why are angular mometum and angular velocity not necessarily parallel, but linear momentum and linear velocity are always parallel?

Problem loading expl3 in plain TeX

Company messed up with patent and now a lawyer is coming after me

Is it legal for private citizens to “impound” e-scooters?

Can a public school “edit” a transcript from a private institution?Can a Californian be in legal trouble for physically restraining a dangerous child not his own?Accident with borrowed car — whose insurance will apply to satisfy legal requirements?question about abusive landlordIs it legal for a car to have a paper license plate in California?Is it illegal to order food and then not pay for it when it arrives?Can private schools in CA require a uniform?Is it enforceable contract to withdraw private prosecution charges for payment?Can a S.Korean game have the right to steal money and items and close your acct for no reason?Is it illegal to ask a company for money in exchange for information on a bug in their software?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}

4

This recent article from The Verge claims that two men in San Diego have create a repo company that impounds e-scooters from companies like Lime, Bird, Lyft, Uber and Razor.

However as far as I can tell these guys are doing this entirely on their own accord. They don't have a license from the city. They write "tickets" in their own system and charge their own rates. They are called not by police but by random business owners.

To me this sounds like straight theft and extortion. Is this something they are legally allowed to do? The article claims that they are now being sued by all these big corporations, but it's unclear to my why this is being treated as a civil matter and not a criminal one.

california theft extortion

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

David GrinbergDavid Grinberg

22011 gold badge33 silver badges1111 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Interesting related stories: nbcsandiego.com/news/local/… smdp.com/…
  
  – David Siegel
  5 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  And another pair: richmondbizsense.com/2019/07/11/… & columbiatribune.com/news/20190626/…
  
  – David Siegel
  5 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  This one is even more interesting from a legal perspective, Scooter company made a DMCA claim: eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/…
  
  – David Siegel
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

This recent article from The Verge claims that two men in San Diego have create a repo company that impounds e-scooters from companies like Lime, Bird, Lyft, Uber and Razor.

However as far as I can tell these guys are doing this entirely on their own accord. They don't have a license from the city. They write "tickets" in their own system and charge their own rates. They are called not by police but by random business owners.

To me this sounds like straight theft and extortion. Is this something they are legally allowed to do? The article claims that they are now being sued by all these big corporations, but it's unclear to my why this is being treated as a civil matter and not a criminal one.

california theft extortion

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

David GrinbergDavid Grinberg

22011 gold badge33 silver badges1111 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Interesting related stories: nbcsandiego.com/news/local/… smdp.com/…
  
  – David Siegel
  5 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  And another pair: richmondbizsense.com/2019/07/11/… & columbiatribune.com/news/20190626/…
  
  – David Siegel
  5 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  This one is even more interesting from a legal perspective, Scooter company made a DMCA claim: eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/…
  
  – David Siegel
  5 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

This recent article from The Verge claims that two men in San Diego have create a repo company that impounds e-scooters from companies like Lime, Bird, Lyft, Uber and Razor.

However as far as I can tell these guys are doing this entirely on their own accord. They don't have a license from the city. They write "tickets" in their own system and charge their own rates. They are called not by police but by random business owners.

To me this sounds like straight theft and extortion. Is this something they are legally allowed to do? The article claims that they are now being sued by all these big corporations, but it's unclear to my why this is being treated as a civil matter and not a criminal one.

california theft extortion

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

David GrinbergDavid Grinberg

22011 gold badge33 silver badges1111 bronze badges

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

David GrinbergDavid Grinberg

22011 gold badge33 silver badges1111 bronze badges

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

David GrinbergDavid Grinberg

22011 gold badge33 silver badges1111 bronze badges

asked 9 hours ago

David GrinbergDavid Grinberg

22011 gold badge33 silver badges1111 bronze badges

asked 9 hours ago

David GrinbergDavid Grinberg

22011 gold badge33 silver badges1111 bronze badges

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

6

Maybe, hence the lawsuits

In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable.

In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone else.

Both sides are pushing hard into unexplored areas of law so we await the judgement with interest. Then we’ll know.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Dale MDale M

62k33 gold badges4242 silver badges8787 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Folks have been having cars parked without permission on private property towed for years. Wouldn't there be a fair amount of precedent from that?
  
  – Charles E. Grant
  8 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @CharlesE.Grant yes, the scooter owners will be arguing it’s not applicable I’m sure. It seems like it would be but there’s enough of a difference that it might be distinguished
  
  – Dale M
  8 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @CharlesE.Grant A person is supposed to mitigate the damage they suffer from another's tort against them. Unlike a car, a regular person can trivially remove a scooter from their property and place it on public property. If there isn't an ordinance against them doing that or some other confounding factor, the scooter companies could argue that claiming the impound fees is an unnecessary expense and only serves to try to punish the scooter companies, which is contrary to a plaintiff's responsibility to reasonably mitigate damages.
  
  – IllusiveBrian
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @IllusiveBrian that's a cogent point, or at least it would be if was a matter of 1 or 2 scooters left on private property now and then. However, (as pictured in the article linked to in the OP) it can be an ongoing problem with dozens of scooters left on private property and significantly impairing its use.
  
  – Charles E. Grant
  6 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43175%2fis-it-legal-for-private-citizens-to-impound-e-scooters%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

6

Maybe, hence the lawsuits

In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable.

In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone else.

Both sides are pushing hard into unexplored areas of law so we await the judgement with interest. Then we’ll know.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Dale MDale M

62k33 gold badges4242 silver badges8787 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Folks have been having cars parked without permission on private property towed for years. Wouldn't there be a fair amount of precedent from that?
  
  – Charles E. Grant
  8 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @CharlesE.Grant yes, the scooter owners will be arguing it’s not applicable I’m sure. It seems like it would be but there’s enough of a difference that it might be distinguished
  
  – Dale M
  8 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @CharlesE.Grant A person is supposed to mitigate the damage they suffer from another's tort against them. Unlike a car, a regular person can trivially remove a scooter from their property and place it on public property. If there isn't an ordinance against them doing that or some other confounding factor, the scooter companies could argue that claiming the impound fees is an unnecessary expense and only serves to try to punish the scooter companies, which is contrary to a plaintiff's responsibility to reasonably mitigate damages.
  
  – IllusiveBrian
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @IllusiveBrian that's a cogent point, or at least it would be if was a matter of 1 or 2 scooters left on private property now and then. However, (as pictured in the article linked to in the OP) it can be an ongoing problem with dozens of scooters left on private property and significantly impairing its use.
  
  – Charles E. Grant
  6 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

6

Maybe, hence the lawsuits

In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable.

In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone else.

Both sides are pushing hard into unexplored areas of law so we await the judgement with interest. Then we’ll know.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Dale MDale M

62k33 gold badges4242 silver badges8787 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Folks have been having cars parked without permission on private property towed for years. Wouldn't there be a fair amount of precedent from that?
  
  – Charles E. Grant
  8 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @CharlesE.Grant yes, the scooter owners will be arguing it’s not applicable I’m sure. It seems like it would be but there’s enough of a difference that it might be distinguished
  
  – Dale M
  8 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @CharlesE.Grant A person is supposed to mitigate the damage they suffer from another's tort against them. Unlike a car, a regular person can trivially remove a scooter from their property and place it on public property. If there isn't an ordinance against them doing that or some other confounding factor, the scooter companies could argue that claiming the impound fees is an unnecessary expense and only serves to try to punish the scooter companies, which is contrary to a plaintiff's responsibility to reasonably mitigate damages.
  
  – IllusiveBrian
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @IllusiveBrian that's a cogent point, or at least it would be if was a matter of 1 or 2 scooters left on private property now and then. However, (as pictured in the article linked to in the OP) it can be an ongoing problem with dozens of scooters left on private property and significantly impairing its use.
  
  – Charles E. Grant
  6 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Maybe, hence the lawsuits

In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable.

In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone else.

Both sides are pushing hard into unexplored areas of law so we await the judgement with interest. Then we’ll know.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Dale MDale M

62k33 gold badges4242 silver badges8787 bronze badges

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

Dale MDale M

62k33 gold badges4242 silver badges8787 bronze badges

answered 8 hours ago

Dale MDale M

62k33 gold badges4242 silver badges8787 bronze badges

answered 8 hours ago

Dale MDale M

62k33 gold badges4242 silver badges8787 bronze badges