Monthly Law Journal Article: Rewards and Finders' Claims, 2011 (4) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     Pennsylvania appellate court upholds a police dept. rule requiring officers who come into possession of “lost, stolen, abandoned or unclaimed property” to deliver it to a designated person within 24 hours. Lamb v. City of Pittsburgh, 99 Pa.Commw. 424, 512 A.2d 1361, 1986 Pa.Commw. Lexis 2417. {N/R}
     Ohio appeals court initially allowed a police officer to assert a claim for 6,87l gold and silver coins that he found. The property was not a "reward" offered to perform a public duty. In its second decision, the court upheld a state statute transferring the ownership of lost property to the governmental entity that employs the officer who found lost or abandoned property. Baker v. City of West Carrollton, 1986 Ohio App. Lexis 7826 and 1991 Ohio App. Lexis 837. {N/R}
     Minneapolis police officer who found $8,527 was contractually barred from asserting a claim of to unclaimed money found in the course and scope of his employment. 365 N.W.2d 791, 1985 Minn. App. Lexis 4017. Fey v. Minneapolis Police Dept., 365 N.W.2d 791, 1985 Minn. App. Lexis 4017. {N/R}
     A police officer who solicits and receives a reward from the owner of stolen property before returning it to the owner is guilty of bribery. State v. Seneff, 70 OhioApp.2d 171, 435 N.E.2d 680, 1980 Ohio App. Lexis 9728. {N/R}
     Lost and found property: removal of a CB set from a wrecked auto is conduct unbecoming; fire captain's defense that he was safeguarding the property was not accepted. Briley v. Little Rock Civil Serv. Cmsn., 583 S.W.2d 78, 266 Ark. 394, 1979 Ark. Lexis 1455 (Ark. 1979).