The Breitling Watch Source Forums

With nothing else but bare possession on someone with no criminal history, I would expect the police to be interested only in finding out where it came from.

"(a) A person commits the offense of criminal use of an article with an altered identification mark when he or she buys, sells, receives, disposes of, conceals, or has in his or her possession a radio, piano, phonograph, sewing machine, washing machine, typewriter, adding machine, comptometer, bicycle, firearm, safe, vacuum cleaner, dictaphone, watch, watch movement, watch case, or any other mechanical or electrical device, appliance, contrivance, material, vessel as defined in Code Section 52-7-3, or other piece of apparatus or equipment, other than a motor vehicle as defined in Code Section 40-1-1, from which he or she knows the manufacturer's name plate, serial number, or any other distinguishing number or identification mark has been removed for the purpose of concealing or destroying the identity of such article." (Emphasis Added)

GA ST § 16-9-70(a).


What knowledge is required?

"Under OCGA § 16-9-70, knowledge that the identification mark has been removed for purposes of concealing the identity of the article is an essential element of the crime, Blair v. State, 144 Ga.App. 118, 240 S.E.2d 319 (1977), which may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Rogers v. State, 139 Ga.App. 656, 229 S.E.2d 132 (1976). However, the evidence here is only that the defendant was aware the serial number had been removed; there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to show that he knew the serial number had been removed for the purpose of concealing the identity of the rifle. Therefore the trial court should have granted the defendant's motion for directed verdict as to this count. As the evidence fails to meet the test of Jackson v. Virginia, supra, this conviction must be reversed." (Emphasis Added).

Power v. State, 260 Ga. 101, 103, 390 S.E.2d 47, 49 (Ga.,1990).


The statute falls under the "Receiving Stolen Goods" title of the criminal code, so realistically the issue would only come up if you were accused of receiving stolen goods, but it is fuzzy enough to make me nervous. After all, it's GEORGIA!

_________________
SHARKMAN

Thanks for checking into that. It kind of gets back to my original point - unlikely anything would come of it, but I'd still be uncomfortable with the thought something actually could. An ounce of prevention is worth $15,000 in attorney's fees.

I agree that it's not comfortable to be in a situation where you depend, even for lack of hassle, on police or prosecutorial discretion.