Local newspaper, major national news publication, no diference.

Newsweek's Richard Wolffe said that the US President had the power to go to war but that the Congress had 'some' wartime powers as well.

Apparently it's OK for a major national publication to assign a reporter to cover the White House, feature him as a political analyst and feature his commentary on MSNBC without determining whether he has even the slightest grasp of American civics. Apparently it's just fine that his editors also lack fundamental knowledge of civics.

His publication provides at the end of the article the following helpful information on how to direct educational efforts at him:

Reporter Tom Quigley can be reached at 908-475-8184 or by e-mail at tquigley at express-times dot com.

Please note I changed the email address by removing the "at" symbol and the "dot" before dot com and replacing them with words, so as to avoid skewing the site.

...took the radios because his dog needed a hip replacement...

I still don't see how taking the radios from the trash would qualify as theft in the first place since according, to the article, the defendant would seem to lack the necessary mental state or mens rea to satisfy that element of the charged crime.   Here, it seems doubtful whether a person taking radios from a trash can intends to permanently deprive the owner of those radios.  

Also, setting aside for the moment, the question of legal impossibility, and assuming that a crime was committed, it still seems clear that the defendant should have been able to assert mistake of fact as a complete defense.  

There must be more to this case than is being reported.  This is the case that no lawyer would ever plead out to----except maybe for unsupervised probation, no fine or court costs, and the conviction gets expunged in a year.   This is the kind of case that lawyers would actually pay to take to trial----I know I would've.  Plus, even if you lose, this would be a really great appellate case.  Again, unless the DA simply gave my client a great deal just to save face by getting a "conviction", this is the appeal of a lifetime.  Almost guaranteed a published opinion and probably the defendant's lawyer could get a couple of articles out of it, too.

I still think there is something more to this case that didn't get reported.  The drug charge went away.  Why?   Don't forget the radios were apparently found in the same search.

I think the questions about this case have absolutely nothing to do with any kind of sentencing loophole. Partly because of TChris's point about the value of the radios not fitting the language of the statute in the first place.

Only the issue of legal impossibility is related to whether the radios were abandoned or still the property of the true owner.  Obviously, if placing things in the trash divests the owner of "ownership," this would be determinative since it is impossible to steal such property. (Assuming that it was the owner who put them in the trash). This does not turn on what either the victim or the defendant thinks about whether property is abandoned when it's put in the trash.  It only matters what the law thinks.  If the law thinks you lose ownership when you trash stuff, it's impossible to steal it (even if the defendant actually thinks he is stealing it).  

But let's say that under NJ law, its your property until you specifically say it's not.  I don't think that's right, but let's say it is.  I don't see how a guy taking stuff from a trash can forms the necessary intent to support a theft charge.  No mens rea,  no crime.  A related issue is whether the defendant get an instruction on mistake (an instruction to which I think he's clearly entitled).   Any defense lawyer who can mumble "reasonable doubt" ought to be able to walk this guy.

In a way, you're right that I am digressing from the point of your post, for which I apologize.   Now, I certainly think you're correct that he avoided the mandatory minimum sentence not because of a "loophole" but because the stolen property was under the threshold for the statute and because of the timing of the arrest.  But it's also true that he may have avoided the minimum for other reasons altogether, and I can think of three possibilities which don't involve loopholes:  (1)  He got a deal because the state's case was weak and the state wouldn't have dared pursue a charge if it carried the mandatory minimum because the defendant wouldn't have plead out  (2) he got a deal because nobody wanted to send a police officer to jail and so, again,  he wouldn't have been charged with a crime that was covered by the statute no matter what or (3) he got a deal because of some other reason.  My money is on a combination of all three, with #3 having the most entertainment potential.