Legality of picks...
Josh A. Goldfoot
> Does anybody on this forum have access to a LEXIS system, and if so
> could you do a keyword search for "lockpick" and the like? It'd be
> nice to see what has happened when "burglar tools" have made it to the
> courtroom.
I did some checking. There's been no Federal decision, and no state court I
looked at has overturned any burglar's tools laws (I was wrong about
Connecticut).
Most states passed these laws back in the 1870's (they've been updated
since then, of course). It seems to be a rather well established part of
criminal law. If you are carrying burglar's tools so that you can open a
lock you shouldn't open, you are commiting a crime -- regardless of whether
you have actually opened the lock yet.
Most cases I looked at where people were actually charged with burglar's
tools didn't involve the types of tools we're talking about... most arrests
are for using sledgehammers and screwdrivers, which count as burglar's
tools.
One interesting case (in California): The police searched a suspect, and
found some shims on him. But, they found no followers, and in court the
defense proved that the shims couldn't be used to open a lock without
followers. The conviction was overturned. Lesson: it's OK to carry around
picks, just make sure you don't have any tension wrenches. :)
----
Josh A. Goldfoot jgf...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
bill nelson
:
: > Does anybody on this forum have access to a LEXIS system, and if so
: > could you do a keyword search for "lockpick" and the like? It'd be
: > nice to see what has happened when "burglar tools" have made it to the
: > courtroom.
:
: I did some checking. There's been no Federal decision, and no state court I
: looked at has overturned any burglar's tools laws (I was wrong about
: Connecticut).
:
: Most states passed these laws back in the 1870's (they've been updated
: since then, of course). It seems to be a rather well established part of
: criminal law. If you are carrying burglar's tools so that you can open a
: lock you shouldn't open, you are commiting a crime -- regardless of whether
: you have actually opened the lock yet.
But only if you are intending to perform a break-in.
: Most cases I looked at where people were actually charged with burglar's
: tools didn't involve the types of tools we're talking about... most arrests
: are for using sledgehammers and screwdrivers, which count as burglar's
: tools.
Exactly. It is kind of hard to justify walking around with a sledge hammer
or a prybar. A screwdriver is a different matter - and is in the "gray area".
: One interesting case (in California): The police searched a suspect, and
: found some shims on him. But, they found no followers, and in court the
: defense proved that the shims couldn't be used to open a lock without
: followers. The conviction was overturned. Lesson: it's OK to carry around
: picks, just make sure you don't have any tension wrenches. :)
I would like more information on this. There has to be more to the story.
Besides, the defense was wrong - regardless of what they "proved". A plug
follower is NOT necessary for shimming a lock. This is true both for
padlocks and cylinder locks. With padlocks, nothing else is necessary
besides the shims - with cylinders, some sort of pick is needed. Of course,
with most locks, the cylinder has to be removed from the lock body before
it can be shimmed - it cannot be done from the keyway side.
Bill
Josh A. Goldfoot
bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) wrote:
OK, here you are. I did not download this from Lexis, since that would be
illegal. Instead, I typed the whole thing in myself.
----
JOHN CLARENCE COOK et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real
Party in Interest
Civ. No. 9979
Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District,
Division One
4 Cal. App. 3d 822; 84 Cal. Rptr. 664
February 24, 1970
[large amount of stuff deleted. I can mail you the whole case if you want.]
Count I charged that on May 6, 1969, petitioners John Clarence Cook and Sam
Frank Urbana, did unlawfully have in their possession a weapon designed for
the
use of a shell containing and capable of emitting tear gas, in violation of
Penal Code section 12420; n1 and count II charged that on the same day they
did
unlawfully have in their possession a tool with intent to feloniously break
and
enter into a building, in violation of Penal Code section 466.
[more deletions]
Officer William Lee testified he was an officer from Los Angeles in
the Scientific Investigation Division since 1951, and had qualified as an
expert
in the field of locks, locksmithing, etc., in different courts and in the
trade;
that he was familiar with the "shim" method of disassembling locks and
their
use; that Exhibits 5 and 6 in evidence before the grand jury were called
"curved
shim stock and they are distributed by the HP Company"; and that they are
curved and manufactured solely for the use of the lock industry in
disassembling
a lock cylinder. He also testified how a "shim" is used and operates;
that
with a "shim" and another instrument called a " follower" one can remove
the
plug; that he is aware of the use of different procedures in burglaries;
and
that this type of tool is used by professional burglars.
[more deletions. Here comes the important part, which contains actual legal
opinion from the judges:]
With respect to count 2, it is argued there is no legal evidence the
"shims," resembling in size and texture a medium sized pen point, were
possessed with intent to feloniously break and enter into a building.
There is
merit to this argument. The "shims" taken from petitioners may be used to
disassemble locks after some maneuvering with an instrument called a
"follower." There is no evidence petitioners were in possession of a
"follower." An essential element of the offense charged in count 2 is
possession "with intent feloniously to break or enter into any building."
(Pen.
Code, @ 466.) The hearsay evidence produced at the hearing, although
admissible
to show probable cause [**670] to arrest petitioners ( <=9> People v.
Brite, 9 Cal.2d 666 [72 P.2d 122]; <=10> People v. Kilvington, 104 Cal.
86 [37
P. 799]), was not admissible to show they feloniously intended to break or
enter
into any building. No person testified any burglary by means of a "shim,"
or
otherwise, actually had been perpetrated, except by hearsay. There was no
testimony any of the rooms at the country club were burglarized, or that
money
or jewelry was stolen from those rooms, except by hearsay. There was no
testimony petitioners registered in the hotel under assumed names, except
by
hearsay. There was no evidence petitioners committed the burglaries
reported to
the police. The testimony they were jewel thieves was hearsay. No loot
was
discovered in their possession. The only evidence showing probable cause
to
believe petitioners intended to use the "shims" to feloniously break or
enter
into a building is hearsay. An indictment based entirely on hearsay
evidence is
unauthorized and must be set aside on motion under Penal Code section 995.
(
<=11> Priestly v. Superior [*830] Court, 50 Cal.2d 812, 815-816 [330
P.2d
39]; <=12> Rogers v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 3, 8 [291 P.2d 929];
<=13>
People v. Bartlett, 199 Cal.App.2d 173, 179 [18 Cal.Rptr. 480].)
It further appears the indictment may be lacking in evidentiary support
to
show a common objective in possessing the Mace cannister and possessing the
" shims. " Absent such a showing the felony and misdemeanor counts are
misjoined
(Pen. Code, @ 954), and the superior court is without jurisdiction to try
count
2. ( <=14> Kellett v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 822 [48 Cal.Rptr. 366,
409
P.2d 206].) Joinder would be proper if it were shown petitioners intended
to use
the Mace cannister and " shims" to commit burglaries. Absent the hearsay
testimony, there is no such evidence.
----
Keep in mind that this is only a decision from a California court, so it
doesn't mean anything in other states.
bill nelson
: Penal Code section 12420; n1 and count II charged that on the same day they
: did
: unlawfully have in their possession a tool with intent to feloniously break
: and
: enter into a building, in violation of Penal Code section 466.
Ah, as I thought. It appears that they were attempting a break-in, and got
caught. Note that the charge was not simple possession.
: Officer William Lee testified he was an officer from Los Angeles in
: the Scientific Investigation Division since 1951, and had qualified as an
: expert
: in the field of locks, locksmithing, etc., in different courts and in the
: trade;
: that he was familiar with the "shim" method of disassembling locks and
: their
: use; that Exhibits 5 and 6 in evidence before the grand jury were called
: "curved
: shim stock and they are distributed by the HP Company"; and that they are
: curved and manufactured solely for the use of the lock industry in
: disassembling
: a lock cylinder. He also testified how a "shim" is used and operates;
: that
: with a "shim" and another instrument called a " follower" one can remove
: the
: plug; that he is aware of the use of different procedures in burglaries;
: and
: that this type of tool is used by professional burglars.
This is correct, as far as it goes. The follower is NOT necessary.
However, it does allow disassembly of the lock - without getting the
pins all mixed up - they would pop out when the plug was removed if
a follower was not used.
His statement that shims are used by professional burglars is also misleading.
They are used to shim open some types of padlocks. They can also be used to
slip the bolts on some door locks.
It is a rare burglar who is going to use lockpicking equipment to get into
a house or building. It is much easier to force the lock - or enter through
a window or wall.
: [more deletions. Here comes the important part, which contains actual legal
: opinion from the judges:]
:
: With respect to count 2, it is argued there is no legal evidence the
: "shims," resembling in size and texture a medium sized pen point, were
: possessed with intent to feloniously break and enter into a building.
: There is
: merit to this argument. The "shims" taken from petitioners may be used to
: disassemble locks after some maneuvering with an instrument called a
: "follower." There is no evidence petitioners were in possession of a
: "follower." An essential element of the offense charged in count 2 is
: possession "with intent feloniously to break or enter into any building."
Lousy terminology. I doubt if the officer was the expert he pretended to
be. Not unusual. You do not manipulate a follower - you simply slide it
into the plug housing behind the plug - as it is withdrawn. Shims are
used in combination with lock picks.
... judges ruling on reversing the conviction deleted ...
Thanks for the info - it is pretty much as I thought.
Bill
bill nelson
: out:
:
: ------------ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
:
: PART IV. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
: TITLE 22. CRIMINAL OFFENSES
: CHAPTER 36. IMPLEMENTS OF CRIME
:
: D.C. Code @ 22-3601 (1993)
:
: @ 22-3601. Possession of implements of crime; penalty
:
: TO CONVICT UNDER THIS SECTION, THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE that the
: implements are
: usually or reasonably may be employed in the commission of a crime, and
: that the
: defendant intended to use them for a crime. McKoy v. United States, App.
: D.C.,
: 263 A.2d 649 (1970).
Yes, it does appear that the FAQ may be wrong.
Bill
Jay Hennigan
Reading between the lines here, these people were suspected of burglarizing
hotel rooms, indeed part of the quoted trial notes refers to registering
under assumed names. The shim/follower would not be used to _open_ a lock,
but to disassemble one or more room locks (where the suspects were supposedly
registered) in order to examine the pinning to make a master key.
On a masterkeyed system, if they have *their* key, and can examine the pins
of a disassembled lock, cutting a master key would not be difficult.
OTOH, with their key, a few blanks, and a guage or micrometer, the same could
be accomplished without the need to disassemble the lock. Picking is not
the only way that locks are opened surreptitiously.>
>Thanks for the info - it is pretty much as I thought.
>
>Bill
--
Jay Hennigan | "I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut,
j...@rain.org | in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to
Santa Barbara CA | have a short-term economic strategy." - Bill Clinton, 1/19/92
bill nelson
: In article <1994Feb9.0...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> bi...@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: >
: >This is correct, as far as it goes. The follower is NOT necessary.
: >pins all mixed up - they would pop out when the plug was removed if
: >a follower was not used.
: >
: >His statement that shims are used by professional burglars is also misleading.
: >They are used to shim open some types of padlocks. They can also be used to
: >slip the bolts on some door locks.
: >Lousy terminology. I doubt if the officer was the expert he pretended to
: >be. Not unusual. You do not manipulate a follower - you simply slide it
: >into the plug housing behind the plug - as it is withdrawn. Shims are
: >used in combination with lock picks.
: >
: >... judges ruling on reversing the conviction deleted ...
:
: Reading between the lines here, these people were suspected of burglarizing
: hotel rooms, indeed part of the quoted trial notes refers to registering
: under assumed names. The shim/follower would not be used to _open_ a lock,
: but to disassemble one or more room locks (where the suspects were supposedly
: registered) in order to examine the pinning to make a master key.
Which is basically what I stated. If the conviction was overturned because
they had no follower, then it was overturned for the wrong reason.
While shims are lock picking implements, followers are not.
: On a masterkeyed system, if they have *their* key, and can examine the pins
: of a disassembled lock, cutting a master key would not be difficult.
: OTOH, with their key, a few blanks, and a guage or micrometer, the same could
: be accomplished without the need to disassemble the lock. Picking is not
: the only way that locks are opened surreptitiously.>
It might be possible to make a master key by "impressioning" - if it did not
contain pick resistant pins etc. In that case, however, a micrometer or gauge
would not be needed - I don't see how one would help, in any case.
Bill
Jay Hennigan
>
>It might be possible to make a master key by "impressioning" - if it did not
>contain pick resistant pins etc. In that case, however, a micrometer or gauge
>would not be needed - I don't see how one would help, in any case.
>
>Bill
If you have a "change" (industry term for normal non-master) key and the
lock that it fits, as a guest in a hotel would, as well as a number of
blanks, you can do the following:
Cut a key identical to your key, but with the first pin position uncut
or a "0" cut. Try it in the lock. If it works go on to step 2. If not,
take the first pin down one depth using a key gauge or micrometer (or a
Le Gard or other code cutting machine). Try it again until the key works.
When you hit the depth of the cut on your original key, it should obviously
work, as the keys should be identical. If so, continue going deeper.
You are likely to find a depth on the first pin _in addition_ to the one
on your key that opens the lock. If not, then cut another blank with the
first position identical to yours, and the second one at the top or "0"
cut.
Step 2: Repeat as above with the next pin position.
The object is to find the cut at each pin position that is different from
the single-lock key you have, but still opens the lock. This will be the
master key bitting. Having two different keys (and locks) from two different
areas of the masterkeyed system will make things a bit easier, as you'll
have a way of cross checking, especially if there are more than two breaks
in some pins.
This exercise, if you're precise, and lucky, can take as few as 5 or 6 key
blanks. At most, a dozen. No real skill in picking or impressioning is
needed. The presence of spool or mushroom drivers matters not. There are
a few shortcuts that can speed things up. If you have a set of depth keys
and a standard key machine, it goes faster. If the locksmith who set up
the system used the convention of making each pin position exclusively odd
or even bits, the number of tries per pin position is cut in half. This
can be verified by having access to two different locks and keys.
A shim by itself is not what most of us would regard as a pick. A shim
and a follower could be considered "burglar's tools" if the intent to use
same to disassemble a lock for purposes of making a master key to be later
used for unlawful entry could be proved (a pretty far stretch). A shim,
a follower, key blanks matching those of the establishment, depth keys,
key gauges or micrometers, and files or a key machine would have made the
prosecution's case a bit stronger. Most of the statutes address the
possession of burglar's tools, of which lock picks are a subset.