When a Good Deed Goes Wrong

SAN FRANCISCO- Café owner Larry Odhner’s experience last month proves it doesn’t always pay to do the right thing.

When a young man enters the entrepreneur’s Hayes Valley establishment peddling a pricey new Dell laptop for $300, his instinct is to buy it.

Odhner [pictured above] purchases the computer suspecting that it is stolen. He thinks that with a little detective work he can locate the rightful owner.

He finds the victim’s name, Leesa Maree Bleicher, after perusing through various folders. And does a Google search. He matches the name to one that is listed in a directory for alcohol and drug counselors. He procures a phone number and leaves a message.

Within a few hours he receives a call from Bleicher. He tells her that he has her laptop and that it would be nice of her to pay him back. The two plan to meet at Odhner’s eatery at 2:30 p.m. the next day.

But instead of a happy reunion, Odhner is confronted by two San Francisco Police detectives, sent to retrieve the computer.

It turns out that Bleicher thinks she is the subject of a scam.

“It was odd,” she says. “It just didn’t seem right to me.

“He seemed like a really nice guy,” she adds. “But these days you don’t know.”

She also says she doesn’t think she should have to pay for a laptop that was stolen from her. The computer was allegedly taken from a satchel that she left unattended in one of her classes. She contends that Ohdner should never have purchased the pilfered merchandise, reasoning that he committed a felony by doing so.

Technically she is right…kind of.

“Knowingly buying stolen property is a crime,” SFPD spokesman Dewayne Tulley says. “Given the circumstances, it sounds, like he was trying to do a good deed, so he wouldn’t be charged.”

He adds that the penalty, according to the penal code, for buying or receiving stolen property, for first time offenders, is imprisonment in prison or county jail for not more than one year; conditions Odhner would be subject to had he been charged.

Tulley says police would not intervene to compel Bleicher to reimburse Odhner, calling it a personal matter and an issue of human decency.

Bleicher’s flippant attitude toward Odhner’s financial loss is frustrating for the do-gooder. He calls her lack of action and her insinuation that he committed a criminal act insulting.

“She not only stiffs me, but calls me a felon,” Odhner says. “That’s the ultimate slap in face.”

When it is pointed out to Bleicher that she probably would not have gotten her laptop back if Ohdner had not stepped in, she calls it a “Catch-22”, but concedes that she is glad he did.

“I am very, very grateful,” she says. “I sent him a nice thank you card.”

Odhner says a friend’s misfortune influenced his decision to intervene, adding that the loss proved to be an invaluable one for his acquaintance.

“A friend of mine had his computer stolen too,” he says. “He didn’t back-up his files, so in addition to losing his laptop he lost all of his work.

He also says that the recent blow to his pocketbook hasn’t blunted his charitable side.

“I will do good deeds for others,” he says. “But I won’t do anything else for her [Bleicher].”

Story by Jen Thomas
Photo by the lovely Anne Lauck