Christians v. Chester

Opinion

SPARKS, J.

The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether a police officer demanding suspected stolen property from a pawnbroker is limited to requesting that the property be placed on hold as provided in Business and Professions Code section 21647 or whether that section merely establishes an alternative procedure to that permitted under Financial Code section 21206.7, which requires only that the officer provide a receipt for property upon seizing it.

1

Defendant Larry Chester, a Shasta County

[275]

Deputy Sheriff, arrested plaintiff Patricia Ann Christians, a pawnshop owner, for interfering with an officer’s performance of his duties when Christians refused to give Chester an allegedly stolen ring in exchange for a receipt. Christians then sued Chester and Shasta County for false arrest and imprisonment.

Christians repeats on appeal the argument she made below that her arrest was unlawful because Chester was required to follow the provisions of section 21647 by requesting that Christians place a hold on the ring and that Chester had no authority to demand the ring. This single issue was tried before the court below which rejected Christians’s argument and entered judgment for Shasta County and Deputy Chester. We agree with the trial court’s ruling and therefore affirm the judgment.

Christians argues the Legislature in enacting section 21647 sought to establish procedures for controlling property in the possession of pawnbrokers which would be uniform throughout the state and that therefore this statute must be read as mandatory. This contention disregards the wording of the statute, its legislative history, and the state of the law at the time the legislation was enacted.

Most importantly, section 21647, subdivision (a), provides only, “Whenever any peace officer has probable cause to believe that property in the possession of a pawnbroker ... is stolen, the peace officer

may

place a hold on the property . . . .” (Stats. 1986, ch. 826, § 6, p. 2810, italics added.) By its own terms, then, the statute merely offers police officers one procedure which they may adopt. There is no language in the statute which expressly or impliedly prohibits an officer from seizing property.