Stolen Bicycles and Pawn Shops in San Francisco, CA

In November of 2014 my bicycle was stolen from 14th and Guerrero in San Francisco. I had left it locked properly, but the lock was broken with a hydraulic jack and the bicycle was gone. I filed a police report, reached out to the bicycle community and SFPD directly, and prepared to file an insurance claim. About two weeks later I got a call from the SFPD telling me that my bicycle had been found; it had been pawned at a Best Collateral location on 6th and Mission. This is also when I found out that I was going to be robbed twice.

The SFPD officer explained to me that Best Collateral now owned a legal interest, enshrined in California law, in my bicycle. Despite the fact that the bicycle was stolen, they had no requirement to ever return it to me, and were in fact free to sell it after the police released it. The SFPD asked Best Collateral to hold the bicycle under a “law enforcement hold” until the SFPD and SF DA could decide on what action to take. After the SFPD and DA decided not to prosecute the person who pawned the bicycle or anyone else involved, I was told that it was now an issue between me and Best Collateral . Best Collateral presented me with only one option: I had to pay them $375 to get my stolen bicycle back from them.

The parts of California law that lay out the rules are Business and Professions Code section 21627–21647 and Financial Code section 21200–21209. Pawn shops are required to report serial numbers to police for all valuable items so they can be matched against records of stolen merchandise. If the police believe an item is stolen, then the pawn shop is required to hold the item until the police and district attorney complete an investigation and prosecution. Once the item is released by the police, they pawn shop may sell it after 60 days. My only options, as the victim of the crime, are to sue the pawn shop to try to establish they knew they were buying stolen merchandise or to pay them.

Best Collateral likes to paint themselves as another victim in this crime. They say that their pawn shop was deceived and injured by the person that pawned the stolen bicycle, but this is disingenuous. The law ensures that somehow they get paid for the stolen bicycle. Either the person who pawned it will pay, the pawn shop will be allowed to sell the bicycle, or the original owner will pay to get his or her property back. There is a clear incentive for Best Collateral and other pawn shops to buy and sell stolen bicycles. Less than 90% of bicycle theft victims file police reports with serial numbers, and even in those cases, the pawn shop still gets paid by someone. Best Collateral only has to maintain that they didn’t know the bicycle was stolen and they will get paid.

In the end, Best Collateral got paid the entire amount they paid the person who pawned the stolen bicycle. My insurance company covered any potential loss they had in buying stolen goods, giving them an incentive to keep doing business this way.

These laws punish citizens twice and encourage pawn shops to buy and sell stolen goods. California law does not limit the ability of the city of San Francisco to amend these laws, and we should require better rules to combat theft. It’s time for the city to ensure that crime victims are able to reclaim their stolen property without being forced to reward pawn shops that buy and sell stolen goods.

Ross Lord
San Francisco, CA 2/25/15