No need to rush. They already had him locked back up on his parole violation.
Let's think about this, though. The bracelet went missing around June, 2001. I think the Smarts would surely have made a police report if they were filing an insurance claim. (Although jewelry might not have been covered by their homeowner's if there wasn't a special rider for it...who knows if they had such a thing for that piece of jewelry?) Anyway, I'm going on the assumption that they reported it to police after they discovered its theft.
At that time, you'd think the police would send a notice to pawnshops in the area, describing the stolen goods.
When it turned up at a pawnshop, seems the pawnshop would then be required to report that to police. Seems the pawnshop wouldn't want to themselves be guilty of possessing stolen goods.
At that point, if the pawnshop had a record of Ricci pawning it, seems the police could have made a case on Ricci for receiving/possessing stolen goods.
The question is, in my mind, when did Ricci pawn the bracelet? When were the police informed by the pawnshop that something mentioned in a police notice had been pawned? Or did the police fail to send out such a notice on the stolen bracelet?