with the intent to extort from him either the laptop computer itself if he had possession of it but not on his person, or information about the computer’s whereabouts if he did not have it. On the latter point, Shakir contends that information about an item’s location is not property within the meaning of applicable California law. The California Penal Code defines extortion as the obtaining of property from another with his consent induced by a wrongful use of force or fear. Cal.Penal Code § 518. California courts have held that the term “property,” for purposes of extortion, should be construed broadly and includes intangible property. People v. Kozlowski, 96 Cal.App.4th 853, 866,117 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 (2002); see People v. Kwok, 63 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1251, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 40 (1998) (<HOLDING>). In Kozlowski, the California Court of Appeal
holding that property includes every intangible benefit and prerogative susceptible of possession or disposition holding that the nonmovant need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference holding that a taxpayers interest as an heir to his mothers estate constituted property or a right to property to which  federal tax liens attached  despite his exercise of the prerogative state law accorded him to disclaim the interest retroactively holding that property of a public entity includes having exclusive control and possession of  property holding where the commonwealth is not in possession of property in question petition for return of property is moot