Academy question

[03rubicon]

Hello all,

Academy cadet and just wanted to get some outside perspective on possession, more specifically for 466. Do the tools need to be on his/her person lets say screw driver and pliers, or if they are on the ground near where you first saw them count as well. Granted you never see them handling the tools but it's obviously out of place just sitting there. I guess my question is them being in the immediate vicinity count as possession or would you need to find other evidence that they had been used to charge a 466.

Thanks for any input

[eviioiive]

How good are your reports?
And more is always better...

[Frank1911]

I don't mean to be suspicious, but that's a great question for one of your academy instructors, if you're truly a cadet/recruit.

Share with us all the articulable facts of what your instructor shares with you.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[03rubicon]

Lol, am I giving you a reasonable suspicion that I am not? I've talked to a couple RTOs, looking for other perspectives. Feel free to chime in or not good sir.

[03rubicon]

Im going on 3 months in so my reports are good but still learning to articulate better.

[P5Ret]

You're going to need more than just mere possession of common tool's for a DA to file. Is the person a known burglar with conviction's, were there recent burglaries in the area, and you have tool marks that can be reasonable matched? I've always used 466 as a following charge to the 459. Otherwise you'd be arresting damn every tweeker with a leatherman for 466.

[DolphinFan]

It comes down to criminal intent.
You could possess every one of the "burglary tools" listed in Penal Code 466...but unless you intend to use them in an unlawful manner...you aren't guilty of a crime. So how do prosecutors prove that you intended to burglarize a car or other structure? Typically via circumstantial evidence.

"Circumstantial evidence" is evidence that doesn't directly point to your guilt but that is reasonably inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Let's take a look at some examples to further illustrate this point.

Example: The defendant led the police on a high-speed chase after the cops tried to pull him over for speeding and running a stop sign. After he was arrested, the police searched his car and discovered "a myriad of tools, including a steel pry bar, a crow bar, five pairs of pliers, a large pair of bolt cutters, a sledge hammer, an unspecified number of screwdrivers and hammers, and a tool box."

The officer acknowledged that all of these items had legitimate purposes and none of them were inherently illegal to possess. However, when combined with the fact that the defendant also had "three walkie-talkie radios, two black sweatshirts (including one with a hood), a strap-on headlight, a flashlight, a ski mask, a pair of binoculars, a bundle in excess of 100 keys, and an assortment of loose keys", the items were all suspicious and were of the type that would be useful to break into a building.

While the black sweatshirts, ski masks, flashlights and walkie-talkies aren't tools or instruments that are described under Penal Code 466 PC, they are commonly used by burglars and can be considered in determining whether the defendant possessed the tools with criminal intent.

[03rubicon]

Thats what I figured is its more of a stack on charge, was just wondering if possession meant it had to literally be on there person or if it was in the immediate vicinity, if that was sufficient enough. Appreciate the input fellas

[Samuelx]

specifically for 466. Do the tools need to be on his/her person lets say screw driver and pliers, or if they are on the ground near where you first saw them count as well. Granted you never see them handling the tools but it's obviously out of place just sitting there. I guess my question is them being in the immediate vicinity count as possession or would you need to find other evidence that they had been used to charge a 466.

was just wondering if possession meant it had to literally be on there person or if it was in the immediate vicinity, if that was sufficient enough.

*****

Reread and highlight CA Penal Code 466, specifically the first sentence. If you were the defending attorney, how would you defend your client, given the circumstances you supplied in your original post and the verbiage of the penal code?

FWIW, You never know what might end up happening in court - take a look at People v Pellecer 2013 and People v Wade 2016...

Also btw, when I was working patrol, I remember at least one arrest for 466 as a primary/only charge - guy was a passenger in the backseat of a car that I had legitimately pulled over. Dunno what the final outcome of that case was, I never got called in afterwards...