Preventing a Break and Enter in Your Home: Tips From a Criminal Defence Lawyer

In the course of my career, I have helped many clients charged with breaking and entering into houses. Even though it is a very serious offence (the maximum sentence is life in prison), some people are prepared to engage in risky and criminal behaviours. Based on my discussions and cases, here are a few steps you can take to make your home less appealing to a potential burglar.

Tip #1

Never confront someone who is breaking into your house/garage

First, you should never confront someone that has broken into your home. If you find a stranger in your home, make sure you do not block the path between them and the door - give them an escape route that does not involve going near you. Instead, get a phone and call the police immediately. There was a recent case in Niverville, Manitoba (June 2017) where a homeowner tried to apprehend a burglar breaking into his garage. The burglar stabbed the homeowner and ran away, but he was arrested shortly afterwards. The homeowner said it is not worth it to get stabbed or killed to protect your property and he "wouldn't do it again." You can read the article by clicking here.

In my experience, people who regularly commit break and enters are trying to avoid people and confrontation. They may be as scared of you as you are of them. Most residential break and enters happen during the daytime, while homeowners are at work. Burglars want to access your home when no one is around during the day instead of at night time when most people are at home sleeping. In some cases, a burglar will try ringing your doorbell or knocking to see if anyone is home or not. Try and look out the window or peephole in the door and if it is someone you do not recognize, do not open the door but yell that you want them to go away. You can contact the police if you feel scared or threatened in any way.

Tip #2

Make sure alarm stickers are easily visible around your house

Second, alarm systems make sounds and can contact the police but once someone is inside your house, the alarm itself may not scare them away. An alarm may just tell them they have to move quicker than normal to escape before the police arrive. However, having alarm company stickers on your windows and doors is something burglars look for to try and avoid houses that have alarms. So, the alarm itself may not stop the break and enter but the alarm signs or stickers might.

Tip #3

Install bolt locks on your garage and house door

Third, forcing in a door is a common way people can gain entry to your home. So, the key is to have a strong door that cannot be easily forced open. Bolt locks are essential because they reinforce the door and make it harder to simply push open. Furthermore, an additional bolt lock is not an expensive upgrade.

Tip #4

Install security bars in garage and basement windows

Fourth, you want to make sure your windows lock as well and you may want to install metal bars in garage or house windows so that a thief cannot climb in if the window is broken. Garages are commonly broken into. Metal bars over the window are clearly visible and tell potential burglars that getting inside isn't that easy.

Tip #5

Close your blinds or shades when you are not home

Fifth, when you are gone during the day or on a holiday, close all of your blinds and window coverings. This way, people cannot see inside your home to determine if you are there or not. Once again, burglars are looking for empty houses and they want to avoid people

Tip #6

Train your dog to bark when someone comes to your house

Sixth, if you have a dog, then you can try and train your dog to bark when someone is at the door knocking or ringing the bell. Break and enter thieves do not want confrontation with people or animals and a dog is an extra hassle when you are trying to get in and out of a house quickly.

Tip #7

If you leave your car keys at home, keep them out of sight

Seventh, do not leave your car keys in plain sight if your vehicle is at home. I have seen many cases where a break and enter turns into a car theft because the thief found the keys inside the home and then drove off with the car. If you are leaving the house empty for a day or short holiday, hide car keys so they are out of sight. Bicycles are commonly stolen from garages. Even if your garage is locked, you can also use a bicycle lock inside your garage so if a burglar gets inside, it is still difficult to steal your bicycle.

Tip #8

You can install video surveillance cameras

Finally, you can install cameras. Most thieves probably will not notice cameras so they would not act as a deterrent. The video surveillance may help the police to identify and arrest the individual afterwards, but at that point it may be unlikely that your stolen property will be recovered.

Related articles

• Safety and Crime Prevention - Break and Enter (ottawapolice.ca)

• Preventing Break Ins (sgicanada.ca)

• Cell Phones and Driving in Manitoba (June 2016 Update) (michaeldyck.ca)

• Winnipeg Police - Lie Detector Test (michaeldyck.ca)

• How does a youth criminal record work? (tomrees.ca)

• Appealing a sentence in Manitoba (tomrees.ca)

About the author

Michael Dyck is a partner at Rees & Dyck Criminal Defence. He represents clients primarily from Winnipeg, Steinbach, and rural Manitoba. He has extensive experience helping people charged with criminal offences and focuses on building legal strategy with clients. To read more of his articles, please visit his partner's website TomRees.ca.

Fort Richmond Collegiate: May 19, 2017 Presentation

I was invited to come speak to a class at Fort Richmond Collegiate about being a lawyer.

I am offering a contest for any students at the presentation to enter to win a $20 gift card to Tim Hortons, Starbucks, or 7-Eleven. The draw will close on Saturday, May 20th at 5:00 pm.

Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. Oland (Bail Pending Appeal)

On March 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada released its unanimous decision in R. v. Oland, 2017 SCC 17. 

This case dealt with the issue of bail pending appeal. Basically, if a person is convicted and sentenced to serve custody (a jail sentence), he or she has the right to apply for bail and be released into the community instead of remaining in custody while the appeal is being decided. Appeals can take months or sometimes years to be completed and if the appeal is successful and the custodial sentence is set aside, it would be unfair that the person would have had to spend that whole time waiting in jail.

In this case, Mr. Oland was convicted for second degree murder. He applied for bail pending his appeal before a single judge of the Court of Appeal and it was denied on the basis of public interest - the judge was not satisfied that public confidence would be maintained in the administration of justice if Mr. Oland was released on bail. Even though the judge found that Mr. Oland posed no danger to the public at large. Mr. Oland appealed that decision to a review panel but the panel of judges decided the bail judge's decision was not unreasonable and there were not any material error of facts, law, or mixed facts and law. Mr. Oland then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court heard this appeal about his bail, Mr. Oland's appeal of his conviction was successful and a new trial was ordered. He was then granted bail pending his re-trial. But the Supreme Court proceeded anyway to address this issue because it was an important legal issue and held at para. 28:

Appellate judges continue to have difficulty resolving the tension between enforceability and reviewability, especially in cases like the present one, where they are faced with a serious crime on the one hand, and a strong candidate for bail pending appeal on the other.

The Court also wanted to make it clear about what public confidence means, specifically, who is the public at para 47:

This person is someone who is thoughtful, dispassionate, informed of the circumstances of the case and respectful of society’s fundamental values. In that sense, public confidence in the administration of justice must be distinguished from uninformed public opinion about the case, which has no role to play in the decision to grant bail or not.

The Court commented on how the review panel should act under s. 680(1):

First, absent palpable and overriding error, the review panel must show deference to the judge’s findings of fact. Second, the review panel may intervene and substitute its decision for that of the judge where it is satisfied that the judge erred in law or in principle, and the error was material to the outcome. Third, in the absence of legal error, the review panel may intervene and substitute its decision for that of the judge where it concludes that the decision was clearly unwarranted.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court determined that Mr. Oland ought to have been released on bail pending appeal.

Related articles

• Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. Bingley (DRE Experts) (MichaelDyck.ca)

• Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. Anthony-Cook (Joint Recommendations)(MichaelDyck.ca)

• Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. Jordan (Unreasonable Delay) (MichaelDyck.ca)

• Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali (Pre-Sentence Custody Credit) (MichaelDyck.ca)

• Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. St-Cloud (Tertiary Ground for Bail) (MichaelDyck.ca)

• Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. Nur (Mandatory Minimums for Firearms) (Michael Dyck.ca)

About the author

Michael Dyck is a partner at Rees & Dyck Criminal Defence. He represents clients primarily from Winnipeg, Steinbach, and rural Manitoba. He has extensive experience helping people charged with criminal offences and focuses on building legal strategy with clients. To read more of his articles, please visit his partner's website TomRees.ca.

Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. Bingley (DRE Experts)

On February 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada released its 5-2 majority decision in R. v. Bingley, 2017 SCC 12. 

This is a case about impaired driving by a drug, specifically marijuana and a prescription drug Xanax. First, you will need a bit of a background about drive impaired by drug cases and law in order to understand the issue the Supreme Court addressed.

If the police pull you over while driving or find you in the driver's seat of a motor vehicle and the police reasonably suspect you have a drug or alcohol in your body, then they can demand and force you to complete either a Standardized Field Sobriety Test or to provide a sample into a roadside alcohol screening device called an Approved Screening Device (ASD). If you fail either of these tests, the officer will then place you under arrest for impaired operation and then demand you complete either a Drug Recognition Evaluation or a breathalyzer sample back at the police detachment. But, if the office has reasonable grounds to believe your ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired, even to a slight degree, because of the effects of a drug or alcohol or both, then the officer will place you under arrest immediately and take you to the police detachment for the Drug Recognition Evaluation or a breathalyzer sample.

Police officers need to take special training to complete Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, ASD tests, Drug Recognition Evaluation tests, or a breathalyzer test so some officers may have training to do some or none of these types of tests. If police officers complete special training for drug evaluations, they can call themselves a "Drug Recognition Expert" (DRE) because that is the term the Criminal Code uses for them.

In court, most of the time, witnesses testify about things that they said, they saw, and they did. In other words, their direct observations. Additionally, opinion evidence can also be provided by witnesses. Some opinion evidence is consider lay opinion, which means anyone can give opinion evidence about these areas. Anyone can testify in court about how old they think someone appeared or how intoxicated they thought someone appeared (these things are not facts but opinions based on observations). Special witnesses can be qualified as expert witnesses and then the expert witness can give expert opinion evidence. For example, if a witness can show they have special training, knowledge, and experience in the area of forensic pathology, then the witness can testify in court about the cause of death in a homocide case.

The case of R. v. Bingley was to determine whether or not a police officer who has training and is a Drug Recognition Expert can testify in court as an expert witness and provide expert opinion evidence or if the court would have to decide whether or not the officer can provide this expert opinion evidence. In other words, is the police officer an actual expert or was that just the name or word used to describe them.

The Supreme Court confirmed that a DRE's opinion is not automatically admissible at trial (at para 11-12). They then turned to whether a DRE could be qualified as an expert using the leading cases in this area: R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 SCR 9 and White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23. And at para. 14 the Court summarized:

The expert evidence analysis is divided into two stages. First, the evidence must meet the four Mohan factors: (1) relevance; (2) necessity; (3) absence of an exclusionary rule; and (4) special expertise. Second, the trial judge must weigh potential risks against the benefits of admitting the evidence: White Burgess, at para. 24.

The issue in this case is whether or not a DRE meets the 4th part of the Mohan test, which is special expertise. Mr. Carson Bingley agreed with the other 3 parts of the Mohan test as well as the admissibility analysis as part of the second stage.

The Supreme Court concluded that a DRE does have special expertise and a voir dire (a trial within a trial) is not necessary to determine if the DRE has special expertise or not, in fact, it would be a waste of time (at para. 27-28). But the Court wanted to ensure that evidence beyond the scope of the DRE testing that the witness provides can be scrutinized at para. 29:

It is important to reiterate a DRE’s s. 254(3.1) determination is a result of administering the prescribed evaluation. That is the only expertise conferred on a DRE. The trial judge has an “ongoing duty to ensure that expert evidence remains within its proper scope”: Sekhon, at para. 46. If opinions beyond the expertise of a DRE are solicited, a Mohan voir dire to establish further expertise may be required.

At the same point, the DRE's evidence does not determine guilt or innocence, but it is "merely one piece of the picture for the judge or jury to consider" (at para. 31). 

Related articles

• Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. Anthony-Cook (Joint Recommendations) (MichaelDyck.ca)
• Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. Jordan (Unreasonable Delay) (MichaelDyck.ca)
• Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali (Pre-Sentence Custody Credit) (MichaelDyck.ca)
• Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. St-Cloud (Tertiary Ground for Bail) (MichaelDyck.ca)
• Supreme Court of Canada Series: R. v. Nur (Mandatory Minimums for Firearms) (Michael Dyck.ca)
• Is Marijuana Use Impaired Driving? (MichaelDyck.ca)
• Maclean's Article Tackles Impaired Driving by Drug Issue (MichaelDyck.ca)

About the author

Michael Dyck is a partner at Rees & Dyck Criminal Defence. He represents clients primarily from Winnipeg, Steinbach, and rural Manitoba. He has extensive experience helping people charged with criminal offences and focuses on building legal strategy with clients. To read more of his articles, please visit his partner's website TomRees.ca.

Steinbach Regional Secondary School: November 16, 2016

I am speaking to the Law classes today at the Steinbach Regional Secondary School. I am going to have a little contest for the kids in the class. The winner will be contacted by email after the contest closes on Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 12:00 noon.

Step 1

Click here to go to the CanLII Connects website if you haven't been there already.

Step 2

Fill out the form below to enter to win a $50 gift card of your choosing (e.g. Tim Hortons, Starbucks, 7-11).

About the author

Michael Dyck is a partner at Rees & Dyck Criminal Defence. He represents clients primarily from Winnipeg, Steinbach, and rural Manitoba. He has extensive experience helping people charged with criminal offences and focuses on building legal strategy with clients. To read more of his articles, please visit his partner's website TomRees.ca.