If the police seized it, it would be considered evidence and I wouldn’t get it back until after the trial, which could take months to resolve.

She wanted her stuff back sooner rather than later. What's unclear to me is the bit about the trial -- was the thief caught and brought to trial? Or is she talking about a proceeding based around seizing the property?

Sounds to me like she might have been coached by the detective into resolving this outside of the law, and I'm not sure who that benefits.

In response to your edit I think what happened is that the police officer was notified of the stolen item by the pawn shop and before filing an official report they contacted the owner of the item and offered them the choice. If she opts to pay the ransom the police officer has less paperwork, the justice system has one less case bogging it down, the pawn shop gets off the hook entirely, and she gets her laptop back quicker. Also the police officer maintains a great relationship with the pawn shop which might be beneficial in other cases. It's a win win win all the way around for everyone directly involved in the case. Unfortunately it's probably a net negative for everyone else as it makes the pawn shop less diligent in the future and makes it easier for robbers to offload their stolen merchandise making it more lucrative for them to continue their "profession".

Yeah, pawn shops are usually very wary about buying / taking stolen goods - after all, they'd be guilty of fencing if they bought / sold the stuff. I'm pretty sure people have to leave a copy of their ID too (or if not, they should). Although that can be faked, of course.

Anyway, if I was a thief I'd steal something, make sure to wipe the thing as soon as possible and power it down (due to Apple's remote location service), then leave it for a month, maybe two, before selling it on a random online auction / secondhand product website, preferably with a new / fake account and through seven proxies.

And even then I'd be hesitant. Apparently the thief only got $225 for the macbook - probably some more from the jewelry and other stuff. Is $500 worth spending years in jail or whatever for?

Then again, $500 for some is a small fortune.

Maybe a third to a half of acquisitive crime is committed by people addicted to drugs.

These people just need things they can exchange for drugs; or things they can exchange for money for drugs.

Here's some UK Freedom of Information.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-cost-of...

The large "pawn" shops that most normal people frequent are probably quite strict about the seller letting them copy their ID, and they make sure the deal does not look sketchy. But I am sure that for every large second hand shop there are dozens of smaller ones hidden out of sight which will buy anything for cash, no questions asked.

That seems like some low hanging fruit for local police stations to target. How serious a crime is "dealing in stolen goods" in the US?

This has not been my experience at all (source: I was burglarized in Salt Lake City, Utah). While looking for my stolen goods at pawn shops, a homeless woman came in with a large backpack. The person working the desk clearly knew her. He asked her? "Who's bag is that marge?", to which she replied "It's yours now".

A pawn shops in Salt Lake City are filled with power tools from construction sites and car radios. Their entire business is heavily subsidized by crime.

My advice to readers is to write down the serial numbers of all your expensive goods. Pawn shops in Utah do have to check serial numbers against an online database of stolen goods.

He could have done just that, but the police would have held on to it until they'd finished their investigation and the court case was over. I suppose it's a question of waiting or paying for speedy delivery.

She doesn't have to pay to get the laptop back. She only has to pay if she wants the laptop back immediately, otherwise she'll have to wait for the police to use the laptop as evidence at trial (or hope the theif takes a plea deal and avoids trial).

this doesn't make sense to me. Police know it's stolen so why didn't they seize it to protect the evidence like they do with other crimes? In a murder, they tape off the scene and have strict protocols for entering. I have to imagine for things like laptops, cell phones, tablets, etc... they would be treated the same way to protect the evidence. Some laptops have software that will take silent pictures if you remotely activate that it was stolen.

I was in a similar situation in Germany, the police handed my my iphone back directly and I had to show up to witness ~10 months later at the trial.