Consumer Protection: You have no constitutional right to avoid getting ripped off on Craigslist.

Why anyone does business on Craigslist is beyond me. I tried posting a big-screen television for sale on there one time, only to get an angry email from someone. This person wasn't interested in buying; they just berated me for pricing the television too high, pointing out that others were selling them for lower. That was about it for me, on Craigslist.  I think the ad is still up, though, so if anyone wants a television that is (apparently) overpriced, hit me up.

Anyway, Craigslist is for scammers and serial killers, and even a mighty document like the U.S. Constitution cannot help you avoid getting ripped off by the people who use Craigslist, as demonstrated by Conner v. Reilly, a Western District of Wisconsin case from 2017 in which some people were defrauded by a Craigslist scam and decided to sue the Rock County sheriff because of it.

The background facts in a nutshell are: couple in Missouri post their car for sale on Craigslist. Guy brings a bank check for $22,500 to buy it. Couple deposits the check and gives the guy the car. Check of course bounces and couple is out the dough.

The car ends up in Wisconsin, where a guy buys it from someone in a parking lot, paying $15,000 for it without ever getting a name or phone number of the seller and without contacting the bank shown on the release of lien form, which was supposed to be notarized but which was not. That buyer then sells it to his dad for $15k, and dad subsequently 'owns' the car when the Rock County sheriff stops by to say oh hey guess what your car is stolen.

Dad, who's no fool obvs says hey get a warrant, so the sheriff does, picks up the car, takes it to impound and eventually the car is shipped back to the bank which still has a lien on it, leaving Dad out $15,000 and probably making for an awkward Father's Day this year.

Dad then filed suit against the deputy and the sheriff, saying they deprived him of his constitutional right to due process, taking his property without a hearing. The Court, for a variety of reasons, dismissed the claims.

The most basic reasons given were that Dad didn't really respond to the arguments the defendants made in order to get the suit dismissed. But beyond that, Dad didn't show that the defendants themselves had actually violated a constitutional right: the deputy who seized the car with a warrant, and the sheriff himself, weren't the ones who let the car go back to the bank. And even if they had been, Dad had not availed himself of the Wisconsin statutory right to demand a hearing under section 968.20, Wis. Stats. on the return of property, and had the remedy of suing the bank for replevin (assuming that he could do so, although the bank being a secured party it's not likely he'd win.

The Court took great pains to note that it was not unsympathetic to the Dad:

The tone of this order granting judgment against Conner in favor of the defendants might sound unsympathetic to Conner. Actually, this court is very sympathetic to Conner's situation: he is out $15,000 cash plus any accrued attorney's fees, and he has suffered immeasurable stress, anger, and perhaps a sense of powerlessness to obtain what he thinks is the fair result here. It is not fair that Conner has been victimized in this transaction, but he was victimized by "L.C. Turner" (as were the Larsens, although they eventually were let off the hook by the bank when the Challenger was recovered). Yes, Conner's son and his employees took rudimentary steps to avoid a Craigslist scam--they dealt relatively locally, they met the seller in person, and they looked at the paperwork that the seller offered—but this wasn't enough in this case because this as a sophisticated fast-moving, fraudulent flip of a desirable muscle car involving forged documents and a quick turn-around. Rock County, Sheriff Spoden and Det. Reilly did not violate Conner's constitutional rights and they did not commit any torts against him. The law enforcement agents in Rock County and Cedar County were just doing their jobs. They are not liable to Conner in this case.

I'm less sympathetic. I don't think anyone should be ripped off, but I spend most of my sympathy on people who maybe couldn't understand that they were being ripped off.  These are people who paid $15,000 cash to a guy standing in a parking lot selling a car, without (at least so far as the opinion notes) taking even the most rudimentary steps to verify the transaction.  And why were they doing that? I did a quick search, and you can buy 2009 and 2010 Dodge Challengers all over the place for about $15,000, from sources that look more reputable than a guy in a parking lot advertising stuff on Craigslist.

There are a million businesses out there that are seemingly legit and prey on consumers, who can be forgiven for not understanding that some guy in California can't help you save your house from foreclosure and it's not in your best interests to rollover your pawn loan on the engagement ring. I'm busy enough protecting people from those; I can't start protecting people from themselves.