The Usual Suspects: “Burglary,’ “Attempted burglary,” and common police investigations.

The Parsippany Patch reported an apparent, completed burglary and a separate, attempted burglary today. Although we are not privy to the status of police investigations, both investigation of these alleged crimes and defense of potential suspects present common themes. Please keep in mind that we don’t know the facts. I offer these thoughts in the hope that someone might find them helpful to understanding the stories reported.

Parsippany police are investigating an apartment burglary and separate attempted break-in of another apartment today. At Tivoli Gardens on Parsippany Boulevard, a resident reported missing jewelry and apparent tampering with her dresser drawers. Police reported the rear door of the apartment appeared to have been pried open. First, although we do not know how the police will investigate this incident, it is common to evaluate the potential course of the intruder. Would an intruder be forced to go through another door to enter the area where this door is located? Are there closed circuit or digital cameras for this outer door? Also, is such an outer door consistently locked or open to the public (insert—probably not a good idea if that is the case)? Next, the police will interview surrounding neighbors or ‘canvass’ to determine the extent of knowledge or witness testimony available. Lastly, the police will usually dust for fingerprints on both the outer and inner doors, if applicable, and the interior doors and subject drawers. Also, if the property is adjacent to commercial buildings, police may look to determine if cameras at the adjacent properties show anyone approaching the building during the time period when the intruder apparently broke into the apartment. Also, this appears to be a day-time break in—who would have access and are there any individuals in close proximity who have a history of either trespass or burglary contacts with the criminal justice system or a history of drug abuse? Drug and alcohol abuse are common indicators for quick, forcible break-ins of this sort.

Later, the same day, police responded to a report of a suspicious person at the Rutgers Village Apartments after vigilant residents reported a man climbing up to a second floor window, with a ladder, behind one of the apartment buildings. Apparently, a resident confronted him and he claimed to live there though the individual questioned indicated that he was not a resident. Sound desperate? What about the fact that the potential suspect apparently ran away with the ladder in tow? Would that not suggest that the person either lives in close proximity or parked his vehicle in close proximity? See, cameras and “usual suspects,” above. Would it not suggest a lack of thought beforehand, i.e. running from a crime scene with a ladder is not, shall we say, convenient and efficient?

Also, “…he was last seen running towards the Partridge Run Apartments.” One may add in the terms—“desperate,” “frantic,” and “get another day job” here.

Just a thought—these don’t seem related, and if they are, it is likely because of the desperation of the suspect, either because of personal problems, or drug or alcohol abuse. That would suggest he lives close by. I could say—“works” nearby but most of us who work rarely run around with ladders looking for burglary targets during the working hours.

At first blush, the first alleged perpetrator would appear to have some knowledge of the workings within that particular apartment complex, i.e. that the outer door (if any, would be open) or that the person within that apartment would be working and away from the apartment. Or, this person might have observed, or “cased” the complex to see if a great number of individuals left the complex from one door prior to the attempt. This shows a little thought, right? Likely, if someone close by is excluded, then someone might have observed the perpetrator lurking outside during the commute hours watching the area and a description can be obtained that way. The second incident, appears frantic and unprofessional. For instance, if the individual was climbing the ladder to the second floor, he would have to either pull himself up onto or through the window, no? No one reported gloves worn by the individual confronted.  That would suggest a treasure trove of ‘prints’ or other evidence in and about the area where the intruder attempted to break in.

You might think, “…well, he could have them in his pockets?” Possible. But do you think Joe Burglar who carries a ladder to the crime scene would do that? I would say unlikely.

John Tierney, Esq.

Law Office of John Tierney