B. Neel Patel Lacked Constructive Possession Because He Cannot Establish a Special Relationship with Marshalls.
“Constructive possession depends upon a special relationship with the owner of the property, not upon the motives of a person seeking to recover possession from a thief.” Sykes v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. App. 4th 479, 482-84 (1994). In contrast, good Samaritans who act on their own good motives cannot have a special relationship with a business. People v. Galoia, 31 Cal. App. 4th 595, 599 (1994). Non-employees who act as good Samaritan do not have the implied special relationship that would give them constructive possession of a non-employer’s property. Id. at 597-98. Rather, a special relationship is formed when a person is given…show more content… Sykes, 30 Cal. App. 4th at 481. The defendant attempted to steal a saxophone from a music store. Id. at 481. The crime was observed by a security guard from another business. Id. at 481. The guard told the defendant to stop and was then briefly approached by the defendant, who then turned away. Id. at 481. The guard, without authorization, followed and apprehended the defendant whereupon he bit or scraped the guard’s hand. Id. at 481. The Court of Appeals held that the security guard did not have a special relationship with the music store and thus lacked constructive possession. Id. at 484. The guard “did not own the premises and had no special obligation to protect” the store’s property. Sykes, 30 Cal. App. 4th at 484. The court further reassessed that because the guard was not an employee of the store and was only a neighbor’s employee and acted on his own as a good citizen; he was unable to constructively possess the saxophone. Id. at…show more content… Patel; Ms. Merkel lacked a right to convey any responsibility because she was off-duty. RT 3. In view of Ms. Merkel’s off-duty status, she lacked the power to grant any authority over Marshalls’s property. That is, the manager in Bradford was on-duty and was allowed to transfer possession to the guards; while Merkel was off-duty when she attempted the same course of action. As a result, Mr. Patel could not be given power over Marshalls’s property by someone who lacked the ability to do so. Therefore, Mr. Patel was unable to have constructive possession over Marshalls’s property.
To summarize, Mr. Patel lacks a special relationship with Marshalls that would grant him constructive possession over the store’s property. Mr. Patel is not an employee of Marshalls and acted as a good Samaritan, therefore would be unable to have constructive possession. Further, Patel’s contract prevents him from having responsibility over Marshalls’s property. Alternatively, Mr. Patel was neither granted express or implicit authority over the store’s goods. As a result, Mr. Patel did not have constructive possession over Marshall’s property.
