On Pros And Cons Whitman Can Be Charged With First Degree Burglary

MEMORANDUM To: Supervising Attorney From: Sydney Anderson Date: October 27, 2024 Re: Whether Ms. Whitman can be charged with first-degree burglary; dwelling and burglary tool; Mercedes-Benz van is a dwelling and broken screwdriver is not an adapted burglary tool. QUESTION PRESENTED Under Oregon law, can Ms. Whitman be charged with first-degree burglary based on whether the converted Mercedes-Benz Sprinter van that she forcibly entered can constitute a “dwelling” or whether Ms. Whitman’s broken screwdriver that she used to break into the Mercedes-Benz van is considered a “burglary tool”? BRIEF ANSWER: Probably yes. Ms. Whitman will likely be charged under Oregon’s statute of first degree burglary because the Mercedes-Benz van will probably be

See 164.205(2); State v. Eaton, 602 P.2d 1159, 1160 (Or. Ct. App. -. 1979); State v. McDonald, 712 P.2d 163, 165 (Or. Ct. App. -. 1986); State v. Ramey, 749 P.2d 1219, 1120 (Or. App. 1988); State v. Kautz 39 P.3d 937, 940 (Or. Ct. App. -. 2002). The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secon The courts have decided what makes a building a dwelling in the following cases. First, in State v. Kautz, the defendant, while fleeing a crime scene with a shotgun, trespassed and remained in a vacant home, which was listed for sale but also visited at least once a week by the previous owner. Kautz, 39 P.3d at 939. The court ruled that even though the house was typically vacant, it was “ready for occupancy” and could be considered a dwelling for the purposes of first-degree burglary since the utilities were still connected and the previous owner intermittently occupied the building. Id. at 940 -. Similar to this case, in State v. Ramey, the defendant trespassed into a vacant apartment unit that was being remodeled. Ramey, 749 P.2d at 1219. The tenant would move into the apartment when the previous owner finished remodeling it, but there was no set

164.235(2); State v. Warner 696 P.2d 1052, 1058 (Or. 1985); State v. Grace, 708 P.2d 1193, 1197 (Or. Ct. App. -. 1985); State v. Sells, 702 P.2d 68, 69 (Or. Ct. App. -. 1985); State v. Bennett, 719 P.2d 38, 41 (Or. App. 1986). The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the ' Furthermore, by specifying that a burglary tool can be designed or adapted, the legislature may assume that altering tools in advance of a crime reveals the burglar’s greater commitment to illicit that crime and deserves a more severe punishment than the petty burglars. Warner, 696 P.2d at 1058. Some examples of burglary tools which are designed or adapted to the tools can be illustrated in the following cases. In State v. Warner, the defendant broke into a locked barn with a metal signpost that he removed from the side of the road and used to pry off the door lock. Id. at 1053 -. The court ruled that neither an object’s actual use nor its capability to facilitate a forced entry are relevant to determine if it is “adapted,” but rather that the object must actually be modified in some way by the criminal to commit the crime. Id. at 1058 -. Therefore, because the metal signpost was not intentionally adapted for the