Also known as: movables · moveable property
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Property the location of which can be changed, including things growing on, affixed to, or found in land, and documents although the rights represented thereby have no physical location.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Mohan Malhotra used after-hours access to enter a university laboratory and removed multiple microscopes and pieces of equipment. He transported the items to a new tutoring center he was opening. The items remained on the university's active inventory and retained market value. Mohan exercised unlawful control over the property with the purpose to deprive the owner.
Mina Mehta, a night-shift nurse, removed sealed boxes of medical gloves and diagnostic strips from a hospital supply room. She sold the boxes online after placing some near a trash area. The items stayed on active inventory with property tags. Mina's actions showed exercise of control over movable property belonging to the hospital.
Melissa Mills, a dispatcher at a trucking depot, saw a recently fired driver enter a loaded company truck and begin driving away. She jumped onto the running board and pulled the driver from the cab to halt the vehicle. The truck contained electronics that constituted tangible movable property in the company's possession. Melissa used force she believed immediately necessary to prevent the carrying away of the property.
Malcolm McKinley, first mate on a cargo vessel, diverted sealed containers of electronics to a smaller port without authorization. He filed a false report claiming the containers were lost at sea. The containers held movable property belonging to the shipping company and consignee. Malcolm's concealment and rerouting demonstrated exercise of unlawful control.
Matthew Martinez purchased large quantities of seed and fertilizer at below-wholesale prices from a cooperative bookkeeper who altered records. He resold the goods at a profit through his farm supply business. The supplies constituted movable property stolen from the cooperative. Matthew acquired possession knowing the items had probably been stolen.
Miles Montgomery, dockmaster at a marina, saw a neighboring boat owner board a sailboat belonging to the marina and begin motoring away. Miles boarded the vessel, shoved the man from the wheel, and regained control. The sailboat was tangible movable property in the marina's possession. Miles used nondeadly force he believed immediately necessary to retake the property after unlawful dispossession.
Movable property consists of items whose location can be changed, such as equipment, supplies, and documents. Immovable property covers all other property, primarily land and fixtures attached to it. The distinction determines which theft provision applies: unlawful taking or control for movables versus unlawful transfer for immovables.
Yes. The statute reaches any exercise of unlawful control over movable property when done with purpose to deprive the owner. A series of removals over weeks or months establishes the required act and mental state, as shown in cases involving multiple takings of lab equipment or medical supplies.
…others in loss of liberty by perpetual or temporary imprisonment. Some extend to confiscation by forfeiture of lands or movables, or both, or of the profits of lands for life; others induce a disability of holding offices or employments, being heirs, executors, and the like."[^maj-3] In France, deprivation or…
…assault of the victim, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(1). In addition, he faced unrelated charges for third-degree theft of movable property, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3a, third-degree escape, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5, and fourth-degree criminal trespass, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3. Following a two-day trial on the…
No. The statute focuses on the objective unlawfulness of the taking and the actor's purpose at the time of control. A mistaken belief based on general observations does not excuse the conduct when the property remains on active inventory and the actor bypasses authorization procedures.
Force is justified when the actor reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property in the actor's possession or in the possession of another the actor protects. A prior request to desist is not required if the actor believes it would be useless, too dangerous, or ineffective to prevent substantial harm.
For movables, the issue is determined by the local law of the state with the most significant relationship to the thing and the parties. For immovables, the reference is to the law of the situs state, including its choice-of-law rules, to reach the same result a court of that state would reach.