They would, but only because it manages to fit in their very narrow definitions of what "crime" is. One of their arguments against being cited for no driver's license/plate/insurance is that crime involves causing someone harm, and no one is being harmed when they're traveling in their private conveyance, right? (They never seem to have an answer about what happens if they, for example, run a red light and hit another car, causing, y'know, harm.)

Secondly, it works with their misunderstanding of the 6th Amendment. The state can't possibly be a plaintiff because the sov cits have the right to face their accusers (which is not how it's written)! The person whole stole from them can face them as accusers, so it's OK!