By Ira P. Robbins

The law of burglary has long played a vital role in protecting hearth and home. Because of the violation of one’s personal space, few crimes engender more fear than burglary; thus, the law should provide necessary safety and security against that fear. Among other things, current statutes aim to deter trespassers from committing additional crimes by punishing them more severely based on their criminal intent before they execute their schemes. Burglary law even protects domestic violence victims against abusers who attempt to invade their lives and terrorize them. However, the law of burglary has expanded and caused so many problems that some commentators now argue for its elimination. Given broad discretion, prosecutors use burglary to over-punish a wide variety of offenses. The law can even encompass mere instances of shoplifting. Additionally, by punishing perpetrators before they accomplish their target crimes, burglary law often acts as a general law of attempts. Much of the law’s expansion stems from adding the word “remaining” to many burglary statutes. This inclusion allows burglary convictions in circumstances in which a perpetrator enters a structure legally, but then “remains unlawfully.” While this language has led to confusion among courts and legislatures about the scope of burglary, there is scant legal literature addressing this confusion. Scholars have yet to untangle the conflicting interpretations of unlawful remaining, and legislatures have failed to provide guidance that captures the nuances of burglary law. This Article unravels the complexities of burglary law and proposes a model statute that retains burglary law for its protective purposes, while also considering its problematic expansion.

UC Davis Law Review, vol. 57, February 2024

By Elizabeth. Groff and Travis Taniguchi

According to the FBI, there were over 1.5 million burglaries in the U.S. in 2016, with almost 70% residential (FBI, 2017a). Combined, the victims of burglary suffered over $3.6 billion in lost property (about $2,400/burglary). Yet, only about 13% of burglaries reported to the police were cleared (FBI, 2017b). While more prevalent than violent crime, burglary rarely generates attention and headlines. Yet, the sense of violation and vulnerability typical of residential burglary victims is considerable, and so prevention would seem the best solution. The Near Repeat Phenomenon The biggest challenge facing crime prevention in policing is the need to correctly anticipate where and when crime will occur (Pease & Laycock, 1999). Hot spots policing focuses on the locations where crimes occur frequently, though knowing when they will occur can help law enforcement effectively deploy personnel. Repeat victimization occurs when the same target is victimized again. However, the “Near Repeat” (NR) phenomenon (Morgan, 2001) is when those that live near to a burglary victim are victimized soon after; in other words, when one home is burglarized, for a particular time period afterwards, homes nearby are at an elevated risk of burglary. Empirical research has clearly confirmed the existence of NR burglary patterns. The exact spatial and temporal extent of increased risk varies; however, we know the increased risk level that occurs after a burglary is temporary, suggesting police must act quickly to maximize the potential for reaping crime prevention benefits.

Washington, DC: Police Foundation, 2018. 14p.

By Elizabeth R. Groff and Travis A. Taniguchi

The objective of this project was to test the efficacy of swift resident notification for preventing subsequent burglaries within near-repeat high-risk zones (NR-HRZ). The experiment was conducted in Baltimore County, Maryland and Redlands, California. As residential burglaries came to the attention of the police, a trickle randomization process was used to assign each micro-level NR-HRZ (measured 800 ft, 244 m from the burglary location) and associated buffer (400 ft, 122 m) to treatment or control. Treatment was performed by uniform agency volunteers and consisted of swift notification to residents in the area of increased risk of burglary victimization. Treatment and control zones were compared for differences in the mean count of residential burglary using independent samples t tests. Two surveys were administered to gauge the impact of the program: one targeted residents and one targeted at the treatment providers. There was limited evidence that the treatment reduced follow-on burglaries. The effectiveness of the intervention varied depending on the post-intervention time period being considered. The results of the community survey suggested that: (1) the most frequent crime prevention actions taken by residents were relatively low-cost and low-effort and (2) notification did not increase resident fear of burglary. The treatment provider survey found that the program was effective at increasing the level of engagement between volunteers and the agency and had positive impacts on community perception. This research demonstrated that law enforcement volunteers can be used to undertake programs that have positive impacts on police-community relations. Limitations included low near-repeat counts, delays in discovering/reporting burglary, and staffing constraints.

Washington, DC; National Police Foundation, 2018. 126p.

By Carol Bevis and Julia Brown Nutter

The replacement of easily accessible streets with streets of the cul-de-sac or dead end design appears to be a promising strategy for the prevention of residential crime.

Minneapolis: Minnesota Crime Prevention Center, 1978. 43p.

By Sally Harvey

This literature review summarises the findings of international studies of what works in police practice to reduce residential burglary, drawing largely on the outcomes of research in the UK, the US and Australia. Residential burglary is one of the most common crimes, of great concern to the general public as reflected in crime victim surveys, and regarded as a major problem by police forces studied in the literature. Internationally there has been an increasing adoption of proactive policing with considerable research effort aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of crime prevention approaches. As part of this evaluative effort, the question ‘what works?’ has been applied to initiatives to reduce residential burglary.

Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Justice, 2005. 114p.

By Stuart Winchester and Hilary Jackson

Residential burglary is generally regarded as a particularly serious crime both because of the financial and material losses to victims and because of the psychological upset which may follow a break-in (Maguire, 1982). It is also a fairly common crime and accounts for a substantial part of the load on the police, the courts and the prison system. In 1980, about 295,000 burglaries to residential property were recorded by the police in England and Wales and these accounted for some 11% of what in official statistics are now called 'serious offences recorded by the police' (Criminal Statistics, 1980). Only 29% of these residential burglaries were 'cleared up' compared with a clear-up rate of 41 % for all serious offences. Yet, in 1980, burglars receiving prison sentences for offences against residential and non-residential properties still accounted for nearly half of all receptions into prison of males under 21 and nearly a quarter of those over 21 (Prison Statistics, 1980). On the basis of offences recorded by the police in 1980 and the numbers of households recorded in the 1971 census, a rough estimate of the average risk of burglary to households in England and Wales was 1 in 55. Risk figures however are higher when account is taken of offences not reported to the police. According to recent evidence from the General Household Survey (see Criminal Statistics, 1980) these represent some 40% of all residential burglaries which occur. On the basis of both reported and unreported crimes, then, the average risk of burglary to households in 1980 may have been closer to 1 in 35 than 1 in 55.

London: Home Office Research and Planning Unit, 1982 47p.

Edited by Ronald Clarke and Tim Hope

This book contains the papers given at a workshop organised by the Home Office (England and Wales) on the subject of residential burglary. This is a topic of much public concern, and I welcome the Home Office initiative in mounting the workshop. The contributors were all researchers and criminologists who have made a special study of burglary, and their brief was to consider the implications of their work for policy. As a policeman, I find their work of particular interest and relevance at this time when police performance, as traditionally measured by the clear-up rate, is not keeping pace with the increase in the numbers of burglaries coming to police attention. The finding that increases in burglary are more reflective of the public's reporting habits than of any significant rise in the actual level of burglary helps with perspective but offers little comfort to policemen. The 600/0 increase in the official statistics since 1970 is accompanied by a proportionate increase in police work in visiting victims, searching scenes of crime, writing crime reports, and completing other documentation. In some forces the point has been reached where available detective time is so taken up by the volume of visits and reports that there is little remaining for actual investigation. But because of the random and opportunist nature of burglary, it cannot be said with any confidence that increasing investigative capacity would make a significant and lasting impact on the overall burglary figures.

Netherlands: Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Pub., 1984. 271p.