Also known as: recapturing of chattels · recaptured chattels · recaption
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A privilege allowing the use of reasonable nondeadly force to regain possession of chattels of which the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed. The privilege requires prompt action in fresh pursuit after dispossession and limits force to what is immediately necessary without creating substantial risk of serious bodily harm to others.
Roberto Reyes learns that a city contractor has removed his traffic controllers from a storage lot without court order. He climbs the fence, takes one back, and pushes a supervisor aside when confronted. Roberto's use of force qualifies as justified recaption because he had been unlawfully dispossessed and acted immediately to recover his chattels.
Ruby Rivera sees a driver load her employer's pallet jack into a trailer and drive away. She follows in a company truck for several blocks, climbs onto the trailer at a stoplight, and shoves the driver aside to drag the jack out. The shove is privileged recaption because it occurs in immediate fresh pursuit and uses only nondeadly force.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Roland Rhodes finds his paintings moved by a gallery into a locked storeroom after a fee dispute. He brushes past a member blocking the door to reach the storeroom and retrieve the works. The entry is justified recaption because Roland was actually dispossessed of his own chattels and acted promptly to recover them.
The privilege applies when the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed and is making a justified recaption under the rules for defense of property. Force remains limited to nondeadly measures used immediately or in fresh pursuit.
Supporting sources
The actor must act promptly after dispossession or in fresh pursuit. Delayed action after the property has left the scene defeats the privilege.
Supporting sources
No. Force to effect recaption is not justified when the actor knows the other person is acting under a claim of right to protect the property, unless the actor was actually unlawfully dispossessed.
Supporting sources