Bad analogy. Suppose the house was built from the foundation up with a variety of stolen goods. What if the siding, the furnace, the roofing, and the windows were all acquired at "midnite contractors"? On top of that, suppose the house in question was mainly used for illegal purposes that endangered the neighbors, such as bomb manufacturing.
In the article, one of the "victims" had a stolen transmission, another a stolen engine, and a third had his VIN tags "fall off" his car. Ever known a riveted on tag to "fall off"? All of them?
Should the receiver of stolen goods be allowed to benefit by retaining possession of them if the cops cannot prove direct personal theft? There's two parts to every burglary and robbery: those who steal and those who make the theft profitable by purchasing the loot.
That is already covered by "receiving stolen property" statutes. I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that even if you bought the stolen property in good faith, then you lose it.
You may not realize it, but if a dealer has to replace the dash in your vehicle, the VIN must be relocated. We have to take the vehicle to the State Patrol and they place a sticker on the dash indicating it has been relocated. We may not reattach it to the dash.
Imagine that you replaced the dash yourself from a scrap yard and reattached the VIN yourself. The state now believes your VIN has beeb altered.
Were stolen parts returned to owners? Why weren’t the kids who owned the vehicles in jail, instead of watching them being crushed?
Give the government an inch they’ll take a mile. If you recall, seat belt laws were not ever going to be used to pull someone over for a ticket. Once in, we now have “Click-it or Ticket.”