So the shaila is, that there is no comma after "moved." So maybe you would read it "moved ... from the property." Meaning, that it was already totally off.
Come on, as a matter of statutory interpretation, such a suggestion offends me. If you're right, it would render "or removed" superfluous, something the canons of construction proscribe.
Your suggestion:
To fail to release a vehicle that has not actually been moved, or removed, from the property when the vehicle owner or operator returns to the vehicle
However, the alternative is also problematic.
The other possibility:
To fail to release a vehicle that has not actually been moved, or removed from the property, when the vehicle owner or operator returns to the vehicle
Frankly, it is a poorly drafted statute. Reading it, as you suggest, to say "moved . . . from the property" renders "or removed" superfluous as having "or removed" adds nothing not already provided for by "moved." (To "remove" it you would necessarily have to "move" it.)
At the same time, reading it the other way, "but has not actually been [(i)]moved [(ii)] or removed from the property" renders the entire second clause superfluous, as again, removing it inherently involved moving it.
The only thing I can think of is that "move" refers to public parking space, e.g. on the street, where as "removed from the property" refers to property which is otherwise private. If so, though, that would mean a person could request that a car be released even after it's totally hooked up and entirely moved from the private space, but still in the private parking lot, something which doesn't make sense.
Who knows. Poor drafting.
