Criminal law and property rights

Criminal Law and Property

The crime that one would likely be charged with in the matter at hand is embezzlement. Embezzlement occurs when an individual misappropriates property while it is in his or her rightful possession. This differs from larceny in that, in a case for larceny, the defendant misappropriates property not in his or her possession. Thus, embezzlement often involves the taking of property from work in that the employee has the right to access of the property but, during this rightful access, misuses the property.

In order to be found guilty of embezzlement, the defendant must engage in 1) a fraudulent, 2) conversion, 3) of personal property, 4) of another, 5) by a person in lawful possession of that property. Conversion is defined as the dealing with the property in a manner inconsistent with the arrangement by which the defendant has possession of it. Fraudulent refers to fraudulent intent.

In order to have fraudulent intent, the defendant must intent to defraud the property's true owner. However, if the defendant intends to restore the exact property taken, there is no embezzlement as there is no fraudulent intent. Yet, if the defendant intends to restore similar or substantially identical property it is still considered embezzlement even if the money that was initially taken and other money of identical value was intended to be returned. More so, embezzlement is not committed if the conversion is pursuant to a claim of right to the property. Whether or not the defendant took the property openly is an important factor in determining claim of right.

Clearly in the case at hand someone is trying to frame the individual for embezzlement. However, the law enforcement agent showing up unannounced inside the house will most likely negate any charges of embezzlement as this is a blatant violation of ones constitutional protection against illegal searches and seizures.

Before an officer can enter a house, in most cases, they are required to have a warrant. Because one has a reasonable expectation of privacy within their own home, the law enforcement agent must have a warrant before entering. In this case, it seems that the law enforcement officer entered without a warrant, thus making it an illegal search and seizure.

However, even if they had a warrant, the entering would still in all likelihood be considered an illegal search and seizure. All warrants must be proper. In order to be proper it must be based on probable cause. There is no probable cause that the embezzlement was occurring inside the home, thus the entering of the home lacks probable cause and the warrant is not proper. However, even if a warrant is not proper it may still be valid under the fourth amendment if certain warrantless search exceptions are met. These exceptions include: incident to a lawful arrest, automobile search, plain view, consent, stop and frisk, and while in the hot pursuit of evanescent evidence. Clearly, none of these exceptions apply to the case at hand. For this reason, the law enforcement officer's decision to enter the home is an invalid search under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The process of purchasing property is essentially a contractual agreement and thus must meet the elements of the law of contracts. In order for there to be a valid contract there must be an offer, and acceptance, mutual accent, consideration, lack of defenses and performance. If a purchase of property agreement contains these elements, then there is a valid purchase.