0

Consider this story:

One evening, Bob walks trough the park and witnesses how a man apparently sells drugs to a group of minors. As he approaches, the man runs away, but Bob catches up on the minors. He gives them a sermon about drug abuse they won't forget for a while. At the end, they more or less voluntarily hand him over their merchandise. As he walks away, Bob disposes off the drugs and considers the issue resolved.

However, the next day, one of the minors reconsiders the story and wants to sue Bob for destroying his property. He requests Bob to pay $200 or the equivalent in narcotics.

Does Bob have to fear anything? Could he be liable? To keep it simple, we can assume that the drug in question is illegal to sell, use or own in any quantity.

Improve this question
1
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
    – Dale M ♦
    Commented Jul 16 at 10:24

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

Does Bob have to fear anything? Could he be liable?

Bob doesn't have to worry about a civil suit for conversion or civil theft.

He may have to worry about criminal liability for drug possession, depending upon the nuances of the applicable statutes and defenses.

Improve this answer
8
  • Lots of interesting twists in here. Are the minors trying to sue or their legal guardians? Did a legal sale happen between the dealer and the minors, or can the legal guardian rescind that and ask for money back from the dealer? What was the value of the drugs, for legal purposes? Did Bob tamper with criminal evidence, and if so was that justified by his attempt to stop the crime of drug use? Apparently the children knew Bob, would the relationship be close enough that he would not have to testify against them in criminal court?
    – o.m.
    Commented Jul 16 at 4:31
  • 2
    @o.m. "Are the minors trying to sue or their legal guardians?" Doesn't matter. "Did a legal sale happen between the dealer and the minors," No. "can the legal guardian rescind that and ask for money back from the dealer?" Maybe, if they can find the dealer who has much bigger worries from the criminal law (an adult buyer couldn't sue the dealer). "Did Bob tamper with criminal evidence, and if so was that justified by his attempt to stop the crime of drug use?" Fair question, maybe. "would the relationship be close enough that he would not have to testify against them in criminal court?" No.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jul 16 at 4:35
  • @ohwilleke "Bob doesn't have to worry about a civil suit for conversion or civil theft." Can you explain why? Because there was never a contract between the dealer and the boy, nor between the boy and Bob (as contracts about the purchase of drugs are void) or because of some other reason?
    – PMF
    Commented Jul 16 at 8:16
  • 1
    @PMF Because you can't sue for something that you weren't entitled to own. Probably under the doctrine of unclean hands in jurisdictions where equitable defenses can be applied to claims arising in law, although there is probably more than one legal theory that could justify it.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jul 16 at 14:05
  • @ohwilleke, assuming the minors are below the age of criminal responsibility (improbable in Switzerland, AFAIK), they might decide to admit to having had drugs, and claim that Bob pressured them into giving them over. Can illegal drugs be property in Switzerland?
    – o.m.
    Commented Jul 16 at 17:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .