because thieves would smash the windows instead! which of course begs the question, why bother with unlocked cars if any car is equally a target?

(rolling probable cause is why)

Because an unlocked car is a situation that can be addressed while a locked car is one that can not, likely reducing the overall number occurrences. Also, an unlocked car is a lower barrier for a potential thief as well. They may choose to pass up a locked car while an unlocked is a much easier target.

> Because an unlocked car is a situation that can be addressed while a locked car is one that can not

They could, by the same logic by which they steal (er, "confiscate") goods that are visible in unlocked cars, just tow away locked cars that have visible goods in them that are an "invitation to thieves". Or, for that matter, locked or unlocked cars that, by their value and ease of theft are, themselves, "invitations to thieves".

Or they could get one of those key fob repeaters to unlock any car with a keyless entry system if the owner is nearby.

I doubt it. From the description of the "caretaker law" presented in the article, it only allows for this sort of behavior for an unlocked vehicle. They wouldn't have grounds to tow a locked vehicle because leaving valuables in plain sight in a locked vehicle, while stupid, isn't a crime.

The implication is that thieves will break the windows and snatch whatever they can. Since the police can't break the windows and "hold the contents for safekeeping" they have to skip the locked cars.

Not all thieves will break a window, especially if it's in daylight in an open parking lot / or street parking, more likely they might just go around looking for unlocked cars especially in places where people tend to run errands mid day in which case they might leave the car unlocked if they only pop out for 5min.

A guy taking something out of the back/front seat isn't as suspicious as some on going around with a crawbar smashing windows.

I've seen individuals going around a parking lot actively looking for unlocked cars couple of times in my life usually a blow of a horn scares them off.

The article says the police will first run the plate and try to contact the owner before they take the stuff. Will they be doing this for locked cars too?

One would hope.

According to this article, yes:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/...

Another interesting tidbit from that: you have to show ID to get your stuff back, and you can only pick it up between 9:30AM and 3:30PM on weekdays. Which is pretty unbelievably shitty.

And they can sell your stuff after 60 days!

> And they can sell your stuff after 60 days!

While there might, somehow, be some arguments that the temporary hold to prevent attracting thieves is neither a deprivation of property without due process (prohibited by the 14th Amendment), nor an unreasonable seizure (prohibited by the 4th Amendment), nor a taking for public use (prohibited by the 5th Amendment) -- though I still think its likely to be at least one of those -- I'm having more trouble seeing even a remote argument for how taking personal property from an unlocked car and selling it, with the proceeds going to the government, can fail to be either a deprivation of property without due process or a taking without just compensation.

Moreover, its exactly the same kind of permanent deprivation of the owners property that the policy is notionally supposed to prevent. "In order to stop your stuff from getting stolen, we had to steal it."

Really?

Probably because they want to "raise awareness" and also on the off chance that the owner's keys are inside the car and if they will be locked out the Police might turn out to be liable.