My time with police has taught me that they will make you do your own documentation by filling out the crime reports yourself, and then just rubber-stamp them for the benefit of your insurance company. Vigilante justice is the only kind there is for misdemeanor property crimes. You could track the thief down, talk him into giving your property back and turning himself in, and drive him to the police station yourself, and the cops would still tell you both to get lost and stop wasting their time.
Petty thieves and burglars are pretty low priority for US cops, as long as it's poor people stealing from poor people. Thus you can have an entire class of people that can routinely steal anything they come across that isn't nailed down, yet never get caught. Because no one tries to catch them. And then they get jobs that give them access to things that are only lightly nailed down, because they have no criminal records.
The cops aren't really there to protect you or your property. They will if it's convenient, but if you need real protection, you'll have to pay someone and have a contract in place. Or just do what most people do: get insurance with a reasonable deductible and keep all your stuff locked up or nailed down.
I sat on a jury for a misdemeanor shoplifting trial. We voted to convict and he got jail time, and when I worked retail during college, misdemeanor shoplifters were almost always arrested and prosecuted when there was good evidence.
I also know people working in the my county solicitor's office and a large amount of their caseload is prosecuting misdemeanor property crimes. I'm sure this varies by location, but I don't think prosecuting misdemeanor property crime is as rare as you think.
Additional, In most states the bar for felony theft is pretty low, and the way that the value is calculated makes it very easy to go over that limit.
For example, I knew a girl who stole some lip balm in high school, but several other girls she was in the store with stole items with a higher value. The DA lumped all of the items together and charged them all with felonies.
The cops may care when someone steals from a retail business. They don't care when the same person steals from you, an individual.
The reason why I know this should be self-evident.
I might also mention that if you know someone in the prosecutors' office, your experience will be very different from the majority of theft victims. Cases that never get referred to the prosecutor due to lack of evidence, due to lack of looking for evidence--or lack of taking the evidence when handed in on a silver platter--are not included in the prosecutors' caseloads.
Cops don't treat retail businesses that much different from individuals in my experience.
If you have video evidence plus a person in custody, a license plate, or an address, there's a good chance of an arrest. If all you have is a picture, then they will blow you off.
>Cases that never get referred to the prosecutor due to lack of evidence
That's most cases of misdemeanor property theft though.
No evidence, video and no idea who the person is, or a he said she said between neighbors that's probably better dealt with through a civil case.
In the vast majority of these cases the problem isn't that the police/prosecutors are being wilfully ignorant, it's that there's nothing they can realistically do.
If it costs more to pay a detective 10 minutes to think about the case than it would to just replace the lost property, the naive case-by-case accounting says to just let it go.
The victim probably doesn't care about a successful prosecution. They might just want to recover their property. They want their bike back. Or their catalytic converter. Or their phone. Or their laptop. Or their dog. Catching the crook is nice, but it isn't the victim's first priority. They just want to be made whole again. They feel that they have already paid for the police protection via taxes, and are frustrated when they can't collect.
But the cops don't want to dick around with solving petty crimes. And they don't want to spend $10000 to recover $200 worth of property, and possibly still not have enough evidence to convict. They certainly don't want to give their only physical evidence back to its rightful owner, and then not have it available for a trial later with clear chain of custody. They also feel that they have already allocated their entire budget, prioritizing more serious crimes first, and that focusing their limited resources elsewhere could reduce public safety.
I'm not judging the cops here, just saying the priorities are not aligned in the petty theft victim's favor, with reasonable arguments possible both for and against the rigorous pursuit of petty crimes.
As a general rule, an individual cannot count on the cops to help them. With anything. Especially if you're not white. So you don't even call them, unless someone is dead or about to die anyway, or you absolutely have to for your insurance claim. Handle your own vigilance, buy property insurance, and let the crooks choke on your glitter.
Petty thieves and burglars are pretty low priority for US cops, as long as it's poor people stealing from poor people. Thus you can have an entire class of people that can routinely steal anything they come across that isn't nailed down, yet never get caught. Because no one tries to catch them. And then they get jobs that give them access to things that are only lightly nailed down, because they have no criminal records.
The cops aren't really there to protect you or your property. They will if it's convenient, but if you need real protection, you'll have to pay someone and have a contract in place. Or just do what most people do: get insurance with a reasonable deductible and keep all your stuff locked up or nailed down.