2015 ORS 164.235¹
Possession of a burglary tool or theft device

(1) A person commits the crime of possession of a burglary tool or theft device if the person possesses a burglary tool or theft device and the person:

(a) Intends to use the tool or device to commit or facilitate a forcible entry into premises or a theft by a physical taking; or

(b) Knows that another person intends to use the tool or device to commit or facilitate a forcible entry into premises or a theft by a physical taking.

(2) For purposes of this section, "burglary tool or theft device" means an acetylene torch, electric arc, burning bar, thermal lance, oxygen lance or other similar device capable of burning through steel, concrete or other solid material, or nitroglycerine, dynamite, gunpowder or any other explosive, tool, instrument or other article adapted or designed for committing or facilitating a forcible entry into premises or theft by a physical taking.

(3) Possession of a burglary tool or theft device is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §138; 1999 c.1040 §13; 2003 c.577 §9]

Notes of Decisions

A beer bottle used to break a jewelry store window was not a burglar's tool as defined in this sec­tion. State v. Reid, 36 Or App 417, 585 P2d 411 (1978)

A rock or a brick is not a burglary tool under this sec­tion. State v. O'Keefe, 40 Or App 685, 596 P2d 987 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

For purposes of defining burglar tool, term "designed" is not unconstitu­tionally vague. State v. Grace, 76 Or App 237, 708 P2d 1193 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Neither an object's actual use nor its capability to be used as tool for burglary is relevant in determina­tion of whether it is "adapted," but object must actually be modified in some way to serve such purpose. State v. Warner, 298 Or 640, 696 P2d 1052 (1985)

Object is not "commonly used" for com­mit­ting forcible entry or theft by the fact that it shares characteristics similar to objects that are commonly used. State v. Warner, 298 Or 640, 696 P2d 1052 (1985)

Defendant, convicted of burglary on basis of use of screwdriver, raised exactly ques­tion decided in State v. Gravesand was therefore convicted under unconstitu­tionally vague statute requiring reversal of con­vic­­tion. State v. Bennett, 79 Or App 267, 719 P2d 38 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 164

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 164—Offenses Against Property, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors164.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 164, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano164.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.