New Jersey Section 2C:5-5 – Burglar’s tools

Contents

1 New Jersey Section 2C:5-5 – Burglar’s Tools

New Jersey Section 2C:5-5 – Burglar’s Tools

New Jersey statute 2C:5-5 deals with the possession of burglar’s tools and criminalizes the possession of certain items that could be used for burglary or theft. This law has been controversial, as critics argue it criminalizes ordinary items and gives police too much discretion. However, supporters say it is an important tool to prevent burglaries and theft. This article will provide an overview of the law, its history, key provisions, defenses, and implications.

History of the Law

New Jersey’s law against possession of burglar’s tools dates back to the 1898 criminal code. The original law prohibited having any engine, machine, tool, false key, picklock, bit, nippers, or implement adapted, designed, or commonly used for the commission of burglary, larceny, or other crime, with the intent to use such tools for those criminal purposes.

The law was revised in 1978 as part of a widespread overhaul of New Jersey’s criminal code. The updated statute, 2C:5-5, was intended to modernize the language and clarify ambiguities in the original law. However, the core purpose of criminalizing possession of burglar’s tools remained the same.

There have been several legal challenges to the law on constitutional grounds, but New Jersey courts have consistently upheld 2C:5-5 as a valid exercise of the state’s police powers. The law remains largely unchanged since its 1978 revision.

Key Provisions of the Law

Section 2C:5-5 states that “a person commits a disorderly persons offense if he possesses any tool, instrument or other article adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or facilitating offenses involving forcible entry into premises, or offenses involving theft or unlawful taking of property, under circumstances manifestly appropriate for such unlawful use.”

Some key aspects of the law include:

It applies to any tool, instrument or article that could be used for burglary, theft, or similar property crimes.
The tool does not actually have to be used in a crime – just possessing it is enough.
There must be circumstances showing the person intended to use the item for criminal purposes.
Violations are a disorderly persons offense, punishable by up to 6 months in jail.

The law gives police and prosecutors wide latitude in determining what items could be considered burglar’s tools. There is no definitive list of prohibited items. Some common examples include lock picks, pry bars, bolt cutters, key cutters, and slim jims. But nearly any object could potentially fall under the law if possessed under suspicious circumstances.

Constitutional Challenges

The broad scope of New Jersey’s law against possessing burglar’s tools has prompted constitutional challenges arguing it is overly vague and gives police too much discretion. However, the courts have consistently upheld the law.

In State v. Lee, the defendant was arrested after police found a hydraulic jack and a lug wrench in his car parked near a warehouse. He argued the law was unconstitutionally vague. But the court ruled the statute gave fair warning that possession of tools usable for theft or burglary was prohibited.

In State v. Merritt, the court rejected a similar constitutional challenge. It ruled the law was not vague simply because it required police to use judgment in determining if circumstances warranted an arrest.

As long as the tools in question could plausibly be used for burglary or theft, and there is evidence of criminal intent, New Jersey courts have found 2C:5-5 to be constitutionally valid.

Defenses

There are several potential defenses if charged under this law:

Lack of criminal purpose – The circumstances must indicate you intended to use the items for burglary, theft, or a similar crime. If you had them for legitimate reasons, this negates the criminal intent required.
Tools of the trade – If you possess questionable items as tools of your trade or profession, you may have a defense. For example, a locksmith carrying lock picks.
On your property – Having tools on your own property diminishes the inference of criminal intent.
Mistake of fact – You may have a defense if you mistakenly believed the circumstances indicated the tools would be used lawfully.

The evidence and context weigh heavily in determining if any of these defenses apply. Merely possessing ordinary items without evidence of intended criminal use is not enough for a conviction.

Implications and Controversies

The broad scope of New Jersey’s law against possessing burglar’s tools has sparked debate over the appropriate balance between public safety and individual liberties. Critics argue:

It criminalizes possession of ordinary, non-suspicious items.
It gives police excessive discretion to arrest based on subjective judgments.
It disproportionately impacts minorities and the poor.
It punishes suspected intent rather than actual criminal acts.

However, supporters counter that the law provides a useful tool for preventing burglaries and theft. They argue:

It allows police to intervene before a crime is committed.
Most arrests involve clearly suspicious tools like lock picks or pry bars.
Courts have set limits on enforcement, preventing abuse.
Similar laws exist in many other states.

Overall, the controversy reflects broader debates about preemptive policing laws that criminalize possession of items based on suspected intent. Reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the line between public safety and individual liberty.

Conclusion

New Jersey’s law against possessing burglar’s tools dates back over a century and remains largely unchanged despite periodic constitutional challenges. While critics argue it grants excessive discretion to police, courts have consistently upheld it as a legitimate exercise of the state’s authority to protect public safety. Debates over the proper scope and enforcement of the law will likely continue as legislatures, courts, and communities balance security needs against civil liberties.