How to response this message: "I believe that Fred could be found guilty of the charge for theft of lost or mislaid property. In the state of Oregon, theft involves the intent to deprive someone of their personal property by taking possession of, appropriating, obtaining, or withholding it from the owner. Even though the property was lost or mislaid, it still continues to be owned by the person who lost or mislaid it. The interest of possession as it relates to property gives someone exclusionary rights to exercise power over something. In order to have possession, there must be a degree of actual control over the property, coupled with the intent to possess it and exclude others from possessing it. It is clear that Fred had actual control of the property. The fact he stated that he "intended to preserve it for the true owner and protect it against thieves" demonstrates his intent to possess the property and exclude others from possessing it. If Fred wanted to demonstrate his good intent in returning the lost or mislaid property to the true owner, he would have considered turning the property over to mall security or management (i.e. lost & found), since the owner of the place where personal property is lost or mislead has a right to the property against everyone else but the true owner. An affirmative defense to this would state that theft involves intentionally depriving someone of their personal property by taking possession of it from the owner, and although Fred took possession he did not intend to withhold the property from the true owner."