Lock Picks and the Law?

[WhiteHat]

(2) For purposes of this section, “burglary tool or theft device” means an acetylene torch, electric arc, burning bar, thermal lance, oxygen lance or other similar device capable of burning through steel, concrete or other solid material, or nitroglycerine, dynamite, gunpowder or any other explosive, tool, instrument or other article adapted or designed for committing or facilitating a forcible entry into premises or theft by a physical taking.

interesting that lockpicks can't really be classified as "forcible entry tools" they're Non-destructive entry tools - which definately don't come under any of the types described above..

[alias]

or any other explosive, tool, instrument or other article adapted or designed for committing or facilitating a forcible entry into premises...

Lockpicks are definitely a tool and/or instrument and forcible entry would be defined as entry outside of the normal operation of the lock. Besides which, torque is a rotational force, therefore picking is a forcible entry.

For what its worth, it'd include anything you'd care to use to assist you in breaking into a place. I seem to remember reading about a case in Criminal Law where a pair of socks was considered to be a tool of break and enter (in South Australia I think) because they were known to be used as gloves to prevent fingerprints and the particular guy had been caught 'sock-handed' one time in the past. In the second instance he was caught before robbing anywhere but had the socks primed and ready...and he went down for it too!

[WhiteHat]

or any other explosive, tool, instrument or other article adapted or designed for committing or facilitating a forcible entry into premises...

Lockpicks are definitely a tool and/or instrument and forcible entry would be defined as entry outside of the normal operation of the lock. Besides which, torque is a rotational force, therefore picking is a forcible entry.

For what its worth, it'd include anything you'd care to use to assist you in breaking into a place. I seem to remember reading about a case in Criminal Law where a pair of socks was considered to be a tool of break and enter (in South Australia I think) because they were known to be used as gloves to prevent fingerprints and the particular guy had been caught 'sock-handed' one time in the past. In the second instance he was caught before robbing anywhere but had the socks primed and ready...and he went down for it too!

the rebelious kid in me says that the lock is actually operating normaly - it's just not being operated by the normal tool..

I guess that case in SA shows what romstar is always harping on about - intent is 9/10ths of the law. ... I own quite a few pairs of socks - does that make me a criminal? heck - I even own gloves....... I guess that guy could have tried to prove that he was a proffessional sock-hand-puppetier.....

[hzatorsk]

...I guess that case in SA shows what romstar is always harping on about - intent is 9/10ths of the law. ......

"Possession is nine points of the law."

That would be 'Possession' (not 'Intent') and 'Points'... not tenths or parts.

Alludes to points (or specific elements) that would help someone's case in a court of law.

...for what it's worth!

Harold

[Romstar]

...I guess that case in SA shows what romstar is always harping on about - intent is 9/10ths of the law. ......

"Possession is nine points of the law."

That would be 'Possession' (not 'Intent') and 'Points'... not tenths or parts.

Alludes to points (or specific elements) that would help someone's case in a court of law.

...for what it's worth!

Harold

I'd always heard the saying as, "posession is nine tenths of the law". So for me it made perfect sense.

I had a chance recently to sit down and have a discussion about this very issue with the Crown Prosecutor in my district. He reitterated very much what I have been saying all along.

Bear in mind however, that this applies only in places where the law specifically calls for an expression of intent. If Intent can be assumed based upon location, time of day, behaviour, and dress is left up to a court IF, and only IF the prosecution wishes to pursue such a matter.

In states and juristictions where mere possession is a criminal offence, intent does not matter. Thankfully these places are few and far between.

In Canada, as in the United States, provincial or state legislation over rides federal legislation. Thusly, if your state or province has regulations governing the posession of "burglery tools" it would be in your best advantage to make every effort to be within those regulations.

However, after some due consideration, the prosecutor and I seem to agree that posession of these tools in your home is not, and cannot be a crime. With the following exception.

If for some unknow and nefarious reason, a person wishes to implicate you as a part of a burglery ring, posession of those tools could become a difficult matter to explain, as at this point, a search warrant may be issued, and now you have a frame job.

Whether or not you have anything to do with such a matter is completely irrelevant insofar as the immediate seizure of your tools is concerned. Be sure to obtain a property receipt, and then sue the ass off your local CP or DA after their little misleading fishing trip is over.

Stick to your guns, demand a jury trial, and never, never take any offer. Obviously, because you have done nothing wrong, they will have no case, and eventually you are found not guilty. Sounds to me like a great case for wrongful indictiment.

In either case, it boils down to this. Read, and understand the law in your area. Find a good lawyer, and know your rights. Don't do ANYTHING that could be construed as illegal, and you should be fine.

Romstar

[jeremy1701]

[quote="Romstar"]
In Canada, as in the United States, provincial or state legislation over rides federal legislation. Thusly, if your state or province has regulations governing the posession of "burglery tools" it would be in your best advantage to make every effort to be within those regulations.
Romstar[/quote]

Actually, the US Civil War was over whether states override the national government (confederacy) or not (federal). If the US government makes something explicitly forbidden (usual) or allowed (such as the FCC allowing radar detectors) no state can overrule them

Though, the only thing I've been able to find in the US Title Code is
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/39/3002a.html
39 USC 3002a:

Any locksmithing device is nonmailable mail, shall not be carried or delivered by mail, and shall be disposed of as the Postal Service directs, unless such device is mailed to - a lock manufacturer or distributor; a bona fide locksmith; a bona fide repossessor; or a motor vehicle manufacturer or dealer.

Or basically: Send it UPS

So that means that it's up to the states to declare them illegal, or leave them implicitly legal.

[Romstar]

Well, it's been a long time since I studied anything concerning American law, but I could have sworn that States had the right to override federal statutes in their criminal code.

IE: Each state had the power to draft, and pass it's own criminal titles, legalities and punishments.

Obviously, federal institutions such as the Post Office are governed purely under federal regulations. As are institutions such as the armed forces, parks service, and others.

Other matters were left to the discretion of the individual states, territories and districts.

At least, that was my understanding of it oh so long ago.

Please do correct me if I am wrong, I really don't feel like going through the current United States code, title and chapter. It's too long, and it's been so long since I read it last.

Romstar

[thertel]

The way its works is that anything that federal law doesnt cover or leaves out can be governed by the states. This is why the republicans want to pass the Constitutional defense of marriage act which would define marriage at the federal level which currently is not the case.

Since the feds do not regulate marriage, accept in the aspect that other states must recognize a marriage from another state as a matter of federal law, each of the 50 states can define it themselves. Thus states where the marriage of 2 members of the same sex is recognized and sanctioned and as thus must legally be recognized by other states.

I admit it might take a bit of legal action to get it recognized in other states but legally they would be required to as i understand the situation.

But back to the topic, state laws may not counteract federal, states may only touch on stuff not dealt with federally.

Thomas

[Romstar]

Is that why it's a felony offence to carry a concealed handgun in New York, but only a misdameaner in California?

Lord, sometimes I hate law.

Romstar

[T-Real]

tool, instrument or other article adapted or designed for committing or facilitating a forcible entry into premises or theft by a physical taking.

Guess that's what I get for researching and posting this information in the middle of the night, when I'm only half there.

Thank you to all for correcting me and I'll try to read closer before posting.

[alias]

T-Real - don't stress it. Thats what conversations are for. We wouldn't be having this one if it wasn't for your post

Romstar - Federal vs State is a HUUUGE can of worms that you just don't want to open up. I did a course on the history of American Constitutional history last year and it's a mess.

The long and the short is that when the Constitution was drafted, the intention of the founding fathers was that the federal government would have powers to act on specific matters and everything else was left up to the states but it has almost completely flipped on its head as a result of judicial interpretation of the Constiution.

At several specific times in contemporary American history the balance between the states shifted towards the federal government. In this instances, for whatever reasons, the federal government has assumed powers which should have been state powers (think development of the first federal bank, issues surrounding the indian removal cases, many many acts by Lincoln during the Civil War and its only heading further in that direction since the development of the administrative state.) Lincoln is actually considered to be the guy who did the most to erode the powers of the States during his term and LBJ is number two on the list so I guess their popularity is an endorsement for centralisation of power but it does amuse me that Americans tend to idolise the Constitution as some unchanging declaration of their rights when the truth is that the Constitution as it's understood today is almost completely opposite to the intentions of the drafters.

State laws are drafted all the time which potentially infringe on the federal scope of powers and vice-versa and at present it's pretty much accepted that the sole arbiters of the constitutionaility of a given law (ie is this a State power or a Federal power) are the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court appointments, as you all know, are essentially political appointments made by the federal Senate and President so you can be assured that the trend towards federalisation is not going away anytime soon.

Anyways, I won't bore you all. I had to write 6,000 words on pretty much this exact subject last year so if I get started I probably won't stop!!

[Romstar]

So, basically what I was taught is right, but at the same time, because of all the things that have transpired over the years, it is now wrong.

Heh, I love the way things get twisted about sometimes.

Yeah, I know all about the supreme court. It's a jumbled twisted, political mess. So, none of this really comes as a big suprise.

Oh well, too bad someone couldn't straighten it out again.

Romstar

[WhiteHat]

yeah! give us a monarchy!!!! oh wait... we sort of already have one.....sort of.... long live the Queen......

[G.I. Joe]

Can anyone tell me the Minnesota and North Dakota laws for lock picking?

[mcm757207]

Try google. A quick search found for minnesota:
**
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/609/59.html

And I'll leave it up to you to find the second state you wanted not hard at all