Copper Wire Theft Prosecutions
1. United States v. William D. Johnson (2015, Michigan)
Case Summary:
William D. Johnson was prosecuted for repeatedly stealing copper wiring from local utility companies. The theft caused power outages affecting hundreds of homes. The prosecution presented surveillance video, eyewitness accounts, and recovered stolen copper from Johnson’s residence.
Legal Points:
Charges: Grand larceny, criminal mischief, and possession of stolen property.
Prosecution Strategy: Leveraged utility records to show recurring thefts over several months.
Outcome: Johnson pleaded guilty to grand larceny and was sentenced to 3 years in prison with restitution payments to the utility company.
Significance:
This case highlights that prosecutors rely heavily on pattern evidence to establish ongoing theft, which increases sentencing severity.
2. United States v. Maria Hernandez (2017, Texas)
Case Summary:
Maria Hernandez and an accomplice were caught dismantling copper wiring from a construction site. They had sold some copper to a scrap metal dealer without proper documentation. The dealer cooperated with law enforcement.
Legal Points:
Charges: Theft of property over $20,000, conspiracy, and dealing in stolen property.
Prosecution Strategy: The scrap yard records and video surveillance were crucial. Hernandez’s prior record of metal theft strengthened the case.
Outcome: Hernandez was sentenced to 5 years in prison and ordered to pay restitution. Her accomplice received a 4-year sentence.
Significance:
Scrap metal dealers are critical in prosecuting copper theft cases, as transaction records often provide the direct link between theft and sale.
3. United States v. Kevin Lee Thompson (2018, New York)
Case Summary:
Thompson was charged with stealing copper wiring from railway infrastructure, causing significant delays and safety hazards. Law enforcement traced the theft through video surveillance and recovered tools linked to Thompson.
Legal Points:
Charges: Felony theft, endangerment of public safety, and criminal mischief.
Prosecution Strategy: Focused on the public safety risk and economic impact of the theft. Expert testimony was presented to show how the theft jeopardized railway operations.
Outcome: Thompson was convicted and sentenced to 7 years in prison due to the severity of the disruption caused.
Significance:
When copper theft affects public infrastructure, courts often impose harsher sentences due to endangerment of the public.
4. United States v. Robert Miller (2019, California)
Case Summary:
Miller operated a copper theft ring that targeted commercial buildings. He hired individuals to steal copper pipes and wiring and sell it to scrap yards. Law enforcement conducted a sting operation by setting up surveillance at known copper hotspots.
Legal Points:
Charges: Organized theft, conspiracy, possession of stolen property.
Prosecution Strategy: Used undercover operations and surveillance to catch Miller coordinating thefts.
Outcome: Miller received 6 years in prison, while two accomplices were sentenced to 3 and 4 years respectively.
Significance:
Organized rings face enhanced penalties because the law treats coordinated theft schemes more seriously than isolated incidents.
5. United States v. Antonio Rivera (2020, Florida)
Case Summary:
Rivera was caught stealing copper wiring from residential homes under renovation. He attempted to disguise his theft as part of construction work. Homeowners discovered missing wiring and called law enforcement.
Legal Points:
Charges: Burglary, theft of property, and fraud.
Prosecution Strategy: Proved intent to steal by showing Rivera bypassed normal construction procedures to remove copper wiring.
Outcome: Rivera was convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison with mandatory restitution.
Significance:
This case demonstrates that even when copper theft is disguised as legitimate work, courts focus on intent and unauthorized removal.
6. United States v. Jonathan King (2021, Illinois)
Case Summary:
King was involved in multiple instances of copper theft from power substations, causing outages and safety hazards. Investigators linked him through fingerprints left on copper panels.
Legal Points:
Charges: Grand theft, criminal mischief, and endangerment.
Prosecution Strategy: Forensic evidence was key; investigators documented financial losses and the public safety risk.
Outcome: King was sentenced to 8 years in prison due to repeated offenses and high impact on public utilities.
Significance:
Repeated offenders face cumulative penalties. Courts often consider both financial loss and public safety when determining sentencing.
Key Observations Across Cases:
Evidence Sources: Surveillance videos, eyewitness accounts, scrap metal transactions, forensic evidence (fingerprints, tools).
Aggravating Factors: Public infrastructure damage, organized theft rings, repeated offenses.
Restitution: Almost all cases include restitution to victims.
Sentencing Range: Typically 3–8 years for felony-level copper theft, higher for public safety risk.
Prosecution Strategy: Combining pattern evidence, cooperation from scrap yards, and forensic linkage is essential.
RELATED Blog
0 comments