--> -->
Hey, there! Log in / Register

Sometimes a crowbar is just a crowbar, court narrowly decides

A 4-3 majority on the Supreme Judicial Court today overturned convictions for possession of burglarious tools for two men who were stopped by police as they walked down train tracks in Norwood late one frigid winter night with two crowbars, gloves, a flashlight, walkie talkies and a map of a possible building with arrows and X's on it, because police failed to prove the men were going to use all that stuff to commit a break in, rather than just going for a little stroll.

Although the majority of the state's highest court allowed as how police might find such activity "suspicious," the justices noted the police found no evidence of a break-in and that those things could also have perfectly legitimate uses - as well as the yellow sledgehammer the pair left behind in the car they'd parked in a darkened shopping plaza before they hopped up on the Franklin Line tracks around 11 p.m. on Feb. 3, 2013.

We do not doubt that the discovery of the defendants on the railroad tracks late at night in freezing weather was suspicious conduct that warranted the threshold inquiry by the police. But this suspicious conduct, without more, did not prove an intent to use the tools in their possession for a burglarious purpose. The discovery of the defendants walking on the railroad tracks was not necessarily probative of an intent to use the tools for burglarious purposes. Although Officer Wennerstrand testified that there were businesses and buildings on either side of the railroad tracks, there was no evidence that the defendants veered off of the railroad tracks to attempt to break into any business, building, or depository. Moreover, the fact that the defendants parked in a shopping plaza parking lot is no more probative of intent than their presence on the railroad tracks. The Commonwealth presented no evidence to prove that the defendants intended to use the ordinary tools in their possession to break into any such "place." ... It is insufficient to merely show possession of ordinary tools in proximity to a statutory place to establish burglarious intent.

As to the map, the Commonwealth did not connect it to any particular or nearby building, room, vault, safe, or other depository, as contemplated by the statute. ... Although the map depicted an "L"-shaped space with the words "Going in" handwritten on it, there was no evidence that the defendants intended to use the map and the tools to break into a place named in ยง 49 with the intent to steal money or property therefrom or to commit some other crime.

The dissenting justices, however, provided the legal argument equivalent to "oh, please."

Even if the two men - one of whom died before the court could issue a ruling - didn't manage to break into a building before officers spotted them, anybody with half a brain could tell what they were up to, these justices wrote:

A commonsense view of the evidence ... leads to the conclusion that the crudely drawn map depicts a building, and the defendants intended to enter that structure at a certain location (i.e., the point marked "Going in") and to follow the path designated by the arrows to the "X" marks. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979). Fact finders are not "required to divorce themselves of common sense, but rather should apply to facts which they find proven such reasonable inferences as are justified in light of their experience as to the natural inclinations of human beings."

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete ruling on burglarious tools130.53 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

some years ago i was considering taking on a contract with some of the major banks. this contract involved maintenance on foreclosed properties. a lot of the work on these properties involved (legally) "breaking in" in very much the same way a burglar might.

it was eye opening, in some ways, how easy it is to break into a house if you have a work van and a toolbox.

up
Voting closed 0

... regarding automobiles.

up
Voting closed 0

I thought it was common knowledge by now that house locks are easy to pick and only stop the honest people.

Also, if you don't mind making a bit of noise, you can kick the door in break the glass...

up
Voting closed 0

than ever err in the other direction.

Still, this sounds funny.

up
Voting closed 0

So then what was the reason of carrying a crowbar?

up
Voting closed 0

Which, of course, raises the question of why he was carrying them with him while out for a stroll on train tracks at 11 p.m., which is what the dissenting justices did.

up
Voting closed 0

Does the reason really matter? Carrying a crowbar isn't illegal.

up
Voting closed 0

The tools by themselves are vague, but the map (and the end of the decision) is pretty damming. Enter through the back, take the 2nd door on the left. At the end of the next room (of hallway) go right, then they'll be a stairway (or whatever) on your left that will bring you to what you are there for.

Not faulting you, just our esteemed Supreme Judicial Court (dolts.)

up
Voting closed 0

That's the problem. It looks bad, but they didn't actually commit a crime.

Kind of like someone looking at your kid in a carseat in the back of the car and calling the police because they think you simply must be planning to leave the kid in the car while you go to work.

There are simply millions of scenarios where someone could just decide that you simply must be intending to commit a crime. Like, you have a "hot" car so you must be planning to drag race in the street. Or you are Black and in Milton (like that doctor who was waiting for his daughter). Until you do something illegal, says the SJC, the police can't arrest you for legal behavior.

up
Voting closed 0

It says you just need to have the intent to do something, and 3 out of 7 judges agreed they had the intent here.

up
Voting closed 0

They were doing something. They were walking around with tools that could be used to break into buildings. With a map to a building. Late at night. On railroad tracks. After parking their car in the parking lot of a strip mall whose stores were all closed.

So, it's kind of like leaving your kid in the car while you go in to grab a few things at the grocery store, but not a full shopping expedition and when it is 70 degrees out. Or like illegally modifying your car, but not necessarily for drag racing.

up
Voting closed 0

HUNTING FOR TREASURE.

C'mon, why else would someone have a map with X's on it.

up
Voting closed 0

Intent, intent, intent.

People have been nabbed for driving somewhere with the intent on harming a person.

up
Voting closed 0

Carrying duct tape, zip ties, a blowtorch, and a pair of pliers isn't illegal either. Neither is a diagram of your ex-girlfriend's apartment! Are you totally cool with someone carrying all those totally innocent accessories out in the woods behind her house?

This is "precrime" as in "before they committed the crime." Police prevented a break-in or worse and the courts told them they should have let the guys actually commit it.

up
Voting closed 0

The problem with vague laws, such as "possession of burglar's tools" is that carrying a tire iron in your car is fine, until some officer decides it isn't. Overbroad laws aren't fair either to the police or to the public. That's not the kind of police environment we're supposed to have in a modern, 'rule-of-law' society.

up
Voting closed 0

It wasn't in their car. It was on the train tracks. Accompanied by a map. With an X to mark the spot. That's exactly the kind of police work we're supposed to have if we value modern prevention over outdated reaction.

up
Voting closed 0

You are not using a log in.

See how easy that was?

Did they really prevent a break in? We don't know. The gist of it is that cops can't create a story about how your legal behavior is really illegal behavior without a bit more to go on.

up
Voting closed 0

you never know when you're gonna run into a headcrab. Better safe than sorry.

up
Voting closed 0

questionable ethics

up
Voting closed 0

Where they at least dressed like pirates?

up
Voting closed 0

I can't believe that, after all these years, I finally get to write about an SJC decision involving "burglarious tools." The only things that could have made this ruling even better would have been references to uttering, shod feet and the Colonial Ordinance of 1641-1647.

Hey, it's the little things ...

up
Voting closed 0

Here's to hoping those friendly lads with crowbars have your house marked with an X, and they don't get caught this time.

up
Voting closed 0

You're actually wishing a potentially violent break-in on someone?

up
Voting closed 0

A threat by an anon.

Hmmm.

up
Voting closed 0

For what its worth, any tool on your possession such as a screw driver, wrench, or a hammer, could be interpreted as burglarious tools by the police, and I am aware of situations where that has happened.

Imagine walking to a friend's house with a screwdriver and hammer so you don't need to carry the whole tool box, getting stopped.

In the case i am aware of there wa sa situation of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Guy was asked to help fix a bike and brought a few tools in his pocket. Finished the job and was walking home. Police saw him and stopped him seeing the tools sticking out of his pocket. They took him in because they had just responded to a call for a break-in at a nearby car. At the station he had to call-in his friend to give the story.

And oh... they would not give him back his tools.

It can happen - and has.

up
Voting closed 0

getting possessions back from the police

gl with that

up
Voting closed 0

which I frequently carry, there's a small crowbar, a few assorted tools, duck tape, in winter a black cap and cold weather face mask,gloves,small flashlight, a folding knife. Police and prosecutors would have a field day.

up
Voting closed 0