Woman jailed for not returning 2005 video rental

[Still_Small_Voice]

PICKENS COUNTY, South Carolina (CNN) — Kayla Michelle Finley may be wishing that services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime had been around a little earlier.

The South Carolina woman spent a night in jail last week for failing to return a video she rented — in 2005.

It was a VHS tape. Of a Jennifer Lopez movie.

Finley, 27, was arrested Thursday in Pickens County, S.C., on a misdemeanor charge of failure to return the video, according to CNN affiliate WYFF-TV.

The movie, "Monster-In-Law," starring Lopez and Jane Fonda as a feuding potential daughter- and mother-in-law, was rented from a video store, Dalton Videos, that is now out of business.

The WYFF report says Finley was at the county sheriff's office on another matter when an active warrant for her arrest was discovered. Chief Deputy Creed Hashe told the station that the store's owner had asked a Pickens County judge for the warrant years ago when Finley didn't return her video.

Hashe said Finley had been sent several certified letters asking her to turn herself in.

Finley spent the night in jail because her bond hearing couldn't be held until Friday morning. A judge released her on $2,000 bond.

Efforts to reach out to Finley via social media were unsuccessful early Monday. But a woman identifying herself as Finley, and whose profile picture appeared similar to Finley's mug shot, took to Fox Carolina News Facebook page on Saturday to defend herself.

She said that after renting the movie she had to move out of state because of her husband's job and that she simply forgot about it.

"I'm no criminal, but Pickens County Sheriff's office sure made me feel like I was," she wrote.

She said she never received any letters from the sheriff's office, while striking back at people who had made negative comments on the Fox post.

"If I had, it would have been taken care of immediately," she wrote. "Some of you need to quit (judging) like you are. This is a bogus charge and everyone knows it."

The Pickens County Sheriff's Office did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Read more at Woman jailed for not returning 2005 video rental | KSL.com

PICKENS COUNTY, S.C. (CNN) — Kayla Michelle Finley may be wishing that services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime had been around a little earlier.

The South Carolina woman spent a night in jail last week for failing to return a video she rented — in 2005.

It was a VHS tape. Of a Jennifer Lopez movie.

Finley, 27, was arrested Thursday in Pickens County, S.C., on a misdemeanor charge of failure to return the video, according to CNN affiliate WYFF-TV.

The movie, "Monster-In-Law," starring Lopez and Jane Fonda as a feuding potential daughter- and mother-in-law, was rented from a video store, Dalton Videos, that is now out of business.

The WYFF report says Finley was at the county sheriff's office on another matter when an active warrant for her arrest was discovered. Chief Deputy Creed Hashe told the station that the store's owner had asked a Pickens County judge for the warrant years ago when Finley didn't return her video.

Hashe said Finley had been sent several certified letters asking her to turn herself in.

Read more at Woman jailed for not returning 2005 video rental | KSL.com

PICKENS COUNTY, S.C. (CNN) — Kayla Michelle Finley may be wishing that services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime had been around a little earlier.

The South Carolina woman spent a night in jail last week for failing to return a video she rented — in 2005.

It was a VHS tape. Of a Jennifer Lopez movie.

Finley, 27, was arrested Thursday in Pickens County, S.C., on a misdemeanor charge of failure to return the video, according to CNN affiliate WYFF-TV.

The movie, "Monster-In-Law," starring Lopez and Jane Fonda as a feuding potential daughter- and mother-in-law, was rented from a video store, Dalton Videos, that is now out of business.

The WYFF report says Finley was at the county sheriff's office on another matter when an active warrant for her arrest was discovered. Chief Deputy Creed Hashe told the station that the store's owner had asked a Pickens County judge for the warrant years ago when Finley didn't return her video.

Hashe said Finley had been sent several certified letters asking her to turn herself in.

Read more at Woman jailed for not returning 2005 video rental | KSL.com

[Guest]

What's the statute of limitations for something like that? How silly.

[Backroads]

Yes, I'd say that's a bogus charge.

[Still_Small_Voice]

The judge who issued this order should be thrown in jail. $2,000 bail for a worthless $20 video? This is absolutely ridiculous if all the facts are true.

[Swiper]

Theft is theft and the warrant was still valid despite being old. I see no problems with the bail amount as she has demonstrated herself to be unwilling to appear in court.

[Sharky]

It's been a while since I've read a "Rental Agreement" for a video movie rental; however, it seems more like that failure to return a video per a "rental agreement" is not so much theft but rather a "breach of contract" ... & therefore by definition is more likely a civil matter not a criminal matter.

[Quin]

Before enlisting, I rented a video, and forgot to return it before shipping out.

When I came home years and years later, I had something like a $6,000 bill.

Whoa.

Say what???

So I just let it sit. The amount fluctuated greatly (offers to let me pay "only" $1200 or $2600 or some such nonsense).

My state passed a law a few year later, banning rental companies (& the public library, who was also notorious at charging $500 in late fees for a $6 paperback) from charging more than the intrinsic value of the item.

Apparently some lawmakers had some overdue things as well.

And took the ridiculous assertions as I did.

As petty scams and extortion, which should be illegal.

Q

[Palerider]

I think they have Therapy for that.

[Swiper]

Before enlisting, I rented a video, and forgot to return it before shipping out.

When I came home years and years later, I had something like a $6,000 bill.

Whoa.

Say what???

Reminds me when I used to work at a legal assistance office for the military. Once in a while we had young Soldiers coming requesting help with this issue. They came back from 12-months deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan just to be greeted with $3000-$5000 bills for unreturned movies from the local video store. I don't know if they just brought the (adult content) videos with them to Iraq/Afghanistan not realizing that they could potentially be liable for a huge overdue fee.

[Still_Small_Voice]

These overdue fees that stores are charging for one video that amount to over $60 are just plain theft. No wonder BlockBuster and a lot these video rental places went out of business. Thank goodness for RedBox and Netflix that have decent rental policies. How much does it cost to replace a video? Most videos could be replaced for $30 or less. I understand there are administrative fees, but anything over $60 is just plain dishonest and usury. It is legal robbery.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well . . . consider the source.

The reports I read a couple of days ago said she was at the sheriff's office being booked on another charge when the warrant popped up in the jail's system.

I would bet money--not a lot of money, but some--that she was formally served with a summons, ignored it and missed her court date, and that the court then issued a warrant--not for the crime per se, but for the fact that she missed her court date. I see this happen quite a bit. The defendant always swears they never got any paperwork, the prosecution always has an affidavit of service showing the date and place of service (and sometimes, the defendant's own signature), and--when shown that affidavit--the defendant invariably trails off with an "Oh, yeah . . . I guess that's what that was . . . I threw it away."

[carlimac]

Oye! Maybe I won't move to SC after all.

[pam]

My son could tell you how many times he's had to pay $25 for not returning a RedBox video. :)

[Quin]

Oye! Maybe I won't move to SC after all.

I HAVE to go back... Unless you do, for me!

My favorite parts about South Cackilacky are all now proscribed by the WOW.

Not that they weren't, before, but I didn't have to follow it before.

Sweet Tea & Mint Juleps, fine tabacco & moonshine.

There has to be more to the state than my memories of it.

Otherwise all I'm left with are sand fleas, swamps, gators, & not so good ole boys.

Q

[Backroads]

My son could tell you how many times he's had to pay $25 for not returning a RedBox video. :)

How does one decide whether to pay the 25$ or just keep a so-so movie?

[pam]

How does one decide whether to pay the 25$ or just keep a so-so movie?

You don't get much of a choice. If you haven't returned it after whatever their prescribed timeframe is, they charge the card that was used at the original rental.

[Bini]

How does one decide whether to pay the 25$ or just keep a so-so movie?

Not all RedBox movies are so-so. We only bother to rent the newer stuff that we might have missed when it was out on the big screen. Unless I misunderstood your post.

[Sharky]

Well . . . consider the source.

The reports I read a couple of days ago said she was at the sheriff's office being booked on another charge when the warrant popped up in the jail's system.

I would bet money--not a lot of money, but some--that she was formally served with a summons, ignored it and missed her court date, and that the court then issued a warrant--not for the crime per se, but for the fact that she missed her court date. I see this happen quite a bit. The defendant always swears they never got any paperwork, the prosecution always has an affidavit of service showing the date and place of service (and sometimes, the defendant's own signature), and--when shown that affidavit--the defendant invariably trails off with an "Oh, yeah . . . I guess that's what that was . . . I threw it away."

An arrest warrant & a hefty (seemingly excessive) bail amount would both make a lot of sense for an "FTA" (Failure-to-Appear) ... if she had been properly served.

Yet, the reports I read all referenced "certified letters" asking that she take care of it ... in my neck of the woods, "certified letters" don't meet the requirements of "properly served" when the judge issues a bench warrant for FTA.

[Backroads]

Not all RedBox movies are so-so. We only bother to rent the newer stuff that we might have missed when it was out on the big screen. Unless I misunderstood your post.

You're right.

But it seems that every time I forget to return a Redbox movie in reasonable time, it's not a very good movie. Murphy's Law and all that.

[Guest]

An arrest warrant & a hefty (seemingly excessive) bail amount would both make a lot of sense for an "FTA" (Failure-to-Appear) ... if she had been properly served.

Yet, the reports I read all referenced "certified letters" asking that she take care of it ... in my neck of the woods, "certified letters" don't meet the requirements of "properly served" when the judge issues a bench warrant for FTA.

My understanding is the Video Store sent her the certified letters asking her to return the video before taking it to court.

My understanding of JAG's speculation is that the Court may have served her a court date and she FTA'd.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yet, the reports I read all referenced "certified letters" asking that she take care of it ... in my neck of the woods, "certified letters" don't meet the requirements of "properly served" when the judge issues a bench warrant for FTA.

I can't speak as to South Carolina, but the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure (rule 6, which invokes Utah R. Civ. P 4--see specifically 4(d)(2)) and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 4©(3)(B )(ii)) both allow for service of a summons by mail. A judge might decide not to issue an FTA where a defendant missed a court date given in a summons that was only delivered by mail (I probably wouldn't either--at least, not on the first one)--but it strikes me that, at least in some jurisdictions, legally, he could.

And at least in the Utah and federal systems--the prosecutor doesn't have to start off with a summons at all. One could call the prosecutor up and say "nanny, nanny, boo boo--you didn't serve the summons properly. Try again, please!"; and the prosecutor's probably going to say "fine, jerk. I'll just ask the court to issue a warrant for your arrest instead." And the court will probably do it.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a nominal Mormon many years ago, where he (a medical doctor and trained in law, a man of no mean intelligence) complained that anti-abortion laws were evil, because they meant that the state would kill a woman who had one! I called him on his outrageous claim; his response was that if law enforcement tried to arrest her and she resisted arrest, why, that could elevate into a violent confrontation, and she could be killed.

Moral: Intelligent Mormons can still be vile liars.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hmm. Maybe I'm too far into the libertarian camp, but I agree with that line of reasoning--anything the state mandates is ultimately backed up by force of arms. Heck, I think I've used parallel arguments on this very forum. My takeaway is that, when the state makes a law, it had better be because there's such a sociological/moral/financial need for that law that it's worth the evils inherent to forcible compulsion. (I happen to find prohibitions on elective abortion to be one of those situations where it is, in fact, worth it.)

[Vort]

Hmm. Maybe I'm too far into the libertarian camp, but I agree with that line of reasoning--anything the state mandates is ultimately backed up by force of arms. Heck, I think I've used parallel arguments on this very forum. My takeaway is that, when the state makes a law, it had better be because there's such a sociological/moral/financial need for that law that it's worth the evils inherent to forcible compulsion. (I happen to find prohibitions on elective abortion to be one of those situations where it is, in fact, worth it.)

JAG, do you agree that public urination should be illegal? Then should we be able to shoot people for it?

Once you resist arrest, the issue is no longer abortion, or public urination, or speeding, or whatever. The issue becomes RESISTING ARREST. If the woman who has an abortion resists arrest, that is a new and different crime from the original one she was charged for. To pretend that the cop is going to shoot her because she had an abortion, as my acquaintance claimed, is a bald-faced lie.

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, do you agree that public urination should be illegal? Then should we be able to shoot people for it?

1. Sure.

2. Certainly not on-sight. But I do contemplate that making the situation illegal will lead to conflicts with law enforcement officials; and I deem public urination sufficiently reprehensible--on both moral and public health grounds--that I think someone who picks a fight with a law enforcement official in attempting to defend his right to publicly urinate, probably deserves what he gets.

Once you resist arrest, the issue is no longer abortion, or public urination, or speeding, or whatever. The issue becomes RESISTING ARREST.

I daresay the Loyalists during the American Revolution would have made a similar argument, and it would have had some merit. But it's a hollow assurance to the citizen subjected to the law with which (s)he disagrees. In the real world, that citizen has three choices:

1) Obey the law;

2) Disobey the law and forfeit property/liberty as a result;

3) Disobey the law, and attempt to keep property/liberty at risk of life.

IMHO, people who demand enactment of a law should understand that statistically there are going to be instances of 2) and 3); and that the probability--or even mere possibility--of such scenarios add an element of compulsion even to scenario 1). The question shouldn't be "are we using state power to dictate behavior?"; but "is this use of state power to dictate behavior justified in this particular instance?".