Opening Garage Door with Stolen Remote Is Not Burglary
The following case addresses this issue, although with slightly different facts.Brief Synopsis: The act of opening a home’s garage door with a remote entry device is not a completed residential burglary because one does not actually enter the home, but is attempted residential burglary.
On the evening of July 24, 2010, in Sacramento County, Timothy Loop was at home when he heard the garage door of his home opening. He had not authorized anyone to enter his garage and so hearing the door opening was quite a surprise.
Evidence was later discovered that Magness had taken the remote control from Loop’s car parked in the driveway.
Magness was then charged with attempted first degree burglary of an inhabited dwelling (Penal Code §§ 664, 459 and460 (a)) and second degree burglary of an automobile (Penal Code §§ 459 and 460 (d)).
At the preliminary hearing, the prosecutor argued that there was a completed home burglary and the judge agreed, reasoning, that opening the garage door was an entry into the home.
Defendant then filed a motion to reduce the charge to attempted burglary. The motion was denied by the trial court and so Magness filed a writ of prohibition in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal then granted Magness’ writ.
The prosecution next appealed to the California Supreme Court. In the published opinion of Christopher Magness v. The Superior Court of Sacramento County (2012 DJDAR 7503), the Supreme Court agreed that the mere act of opening the garage door was only attempted burglary, not a completed entry into the home.
The Supreme Court first discussed a series of published opinions that had similar facts and where the central issue was whether attempted burglary or burglary took place (Penal Code § 459).
The Supreme Court in Magness found it crucial that while defendant may have committed a “breaking” in the context of entering by opening the garage door, “he did not ever enter the residence.” No part of his body or tools penetrated the outer boundary of the residence. Moreover, there was no allegation, for example, that defendant reached under the bottom of the garage door with his hand or with a tool. There was no physical entry into the structure. In short, the court held, “something that is outside must go inside for an entry to occur.”
For more information about burglary, click on the following articles:
Contact Greg Hill & Associates