Opinion ID: 1177055
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Background of the Statute

Text: Oregon enacted its statute proscribing possession of burglar's tools in 1971. Before that time, possession of burglar's tools was not a crime in Oregon. State v. Rater, 253 Or. 109, 453 P.2d 680 (1969). For many states, however, statutes proscribing possession of tools and implements of housebreaking are not a recent phenomenon. A British statute for the Punishment of idle and disorderly Persons, and Rogues and Vagabonds declared that every Person having in his or her Custody or Possession any Picklock, Key, Crow, Jack, Bit or other Implement, with Intent feloniously to break into any Dwelling House, Warehouse, Coach House, Stable or Outbuilding    shall be deemed a Rogue and a Vagabond, within the true Intent and Meaning of this Act; and it shall be lawful for any Justice of the Peace to commit such offender (being thereof convicted before him by the Confessions of such offender, or by the Evidence on Oath of One or more credible Witness or Witnesses) to the House of Correction, there to be kept to hard Labour for any Time not exceeding Three Calendar Months   . 5 Geo IV, quoted in 3 Chitty, Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law 1116 (1841). By the turn of the century many American states had similar statutes [1] and, today, only a few states lack such a proscription. [2] Before Oregon's 1971 revision of the criminal code, burglary was committed either by breaking and entering a dwelling, the most severely punished form of the crime, or by breaking and entering any structure other than a dwelling, a less serious crime. One statute punished the use of explosives to commit a crime in a building entered during the night. ORS 164.260. Use or attempted use of nitroglycerine, dynamite, gunpowder or other high explosive in the commission of a crime in a building after unlawful entry made one vulnerable to a 40-year sentence. [3] As drafted by the Criminal Law Revision Commission in 1970, the less serious crime involving non-dwellings could be enhanced to a first degree offense if the actor were armed with explosives or a deadly weapon. The inclusion of explosives was an apparent attempt to continue the old law with regard to burglary with explosives. Commentary to Proposed Oregon Criminal Code 145 (1970). An entirely new section penalizing possession of burglar's tools appeared in this proposed draft. One who possesses any burglar's tool with intent to use it, or knowing that someone intends to use it, to facilitate a forcible entry into premises or theft could be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. The Commission's proposed definition of a burglar's tool was as follows: (2) `Burglar tool' means explosive, tool, instrument or other article adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or facilitating a forcible entry into premises or theft by a physical taking. Proposed Oregon Criminal Code § 138 (1970). The definition of burglar's tools and the crime of possession derive from a combination of the New York Revised Penal Law and the Proposed Michigan Revised Criminal Code. [4] The Senate Criminal Law and Procedure Committee amended the Criminal Law Revision Commission's proposed first degree burglary statute to elaborate on the term explosive. The amendment added the following list of burning and exploding devices to the first degree burglary enhancement language: acetylene torch, or electric arc, burning bar, thermal lance, oxygen lance, or any other similar device capable of burning through steel, concrete, or any other solid substance, or nitroglycerine, dynamite, gunpowder, or any other explosive. Witnesses before the committee testified that such an amendment was needed in order to broaden the definition to include the safe-cracking professional    who uses the acetylene torch or that type of device, not to gain entry but to penetrate a secure area inside the place burglarized. [5] This same language was suggested as an amendment to the definition of burglar's tools in the possession statute in order to maintain consistency. The possession statute was accordingly amended. [6] The result, at this point, was that the first degree burglary statute included a detailed list of burning and exploding devices and the possession statute contained this list in addition to a proscription against tools, instruments or other articles adapted, designed or commonly used for forcible entry or theft. Both parties tell us that the printed amendment to the first degree burglary statute does not correspond to the amendment passed by the Senate Committee. Instead of including only the list of burning and exploding devices in the first degree burglary statute, the amendment incorporated by cross-reference the entire definition of burglar's tools from the possession statute. This amendment, though different from that drafted by the Senate Committee, was passed by the full Senate, the House Judiciary Committee and the full House of Representatives. At oral argument, defendant took the position that though the two statutes by cross-reference contain an identical definition of burglar's tools, we should interpret the first degree burglary statute narrowly on the theory that the legislature, or at least the Senate Criminal Law and Procedure Committee, never intended to expand the first degree burglary statute beyond burning and exploding devices. It is not unusual that the same statutory language may be interpreted in different ways where warranted by legislative intent. However, defendant's position disregards the fact that the amendment was approved by both houses after it left the Senate Committee. This is ample indication that burglar's tools should be defined consistently in the two statutes.