22

If one effectively guesses the correct passcode to the lock so as to open it without causing any damage and then peacefully enters (seemingly a mere civil trespass) the (previously) secured premises, do they commit any criminal offence?

Michael Hall
  • 4,353
  • 1
  • 17
  • 36
TylerDurden
  • 1
  • 1
  • 30
  • 92
  • 1
    "brute forcing" in the title is not consistent with "guesses the correct passcode" in the body. They are opposite things. – ohwilleke Apr 22 '23 at 19:29
  • 20
    I belive the OP is alluding to the idea of "brute forcing" a cypher's key: ie trying every possible key until one works, rather than "using brute force to open the door". – James K Apr 22 '23 at 20:18
  • 18
    Yes, here "brute force" means trying every combination, not physical force. – kaya3 Apr 22 '23 at 20:54
  • Yes @kaya3 is exactly right – TylerDurden Apr 22 '23 at 23:42
  • 6
    Since ‘brute forcing’, while an established term in cryptography, has led people to misunderstand the question, I've submitted an edit to add scare quotes in the title. – Toby Bartels Apr 23 '23 at 01:42
  • Presumably it's exactly the same as if you enter by finding a front-door key under a flowerpot and using it to unlock the door. – Michael Kay Apr 23 '23 at 10:59
  • 1
    brute forcing as in trying numerous possible combinations until arriving at the correct one is still slightly different from just "guessing" the correct combination. Might not make much of a legal difference, but as a concept, they're not the same. (To turn to more physical acts, it comes to mind to compare those to just trying a doorknob while passing to see if it opens, vs. stopping at the door to actively try to force it open.) – ilkkachu Apr 23 '23 at 11:29
  • 4
    @ilkkachu : How about picking a lock? While more sophisticated than brute forcing, it's similar in that it doesn't cause any damage (ideally). – Toby Bartels Apr 23 '23 at 14:20
  • 2
    @TobyBartels, similar to an exhaustive (brute force) search of the combination, in that it involves some effort and not just an off-hand attempt, yes. – ilkkachu Apr 23 '23 at 15:19
  • Another relevant bit of jargon might be shoulder-surfing - i.e. reading the combination over someone's shoulder as they legitimately open the lock. That could directly lead to non-destructive illegitimate entry, or could reveal part of the code and make brute-forcing much easier. There's even a form of frequency analysis that's relevant - looking for the wear pattern on the buttons to narrow down the number of combinations to test. I wonder how these affect @ilkkachu's statement that a lucky guess and trying all the guesses are different – Chris H Apr 24 '23 at 13:31
  • An important issue I've not seen mentioned is that someone who is caught attempting unsuccessfully to open a lock might might be charged with attempted theft of whatever the lock guards, regardless of whether they actually intended to steal anything. Prosecution might be unlikely in most scenarios, but if e.g. there have been many thefts in the area by someone who may have gained entry the same way, someone who is caught trying combinations would likely be viewed as a prime suspect. – supercat Apr 24 '23 at 15:14
  • It surely depends on the jurisdiction. There are countries where using something without the intention to deprive it's owner of it and even returning it in it's original state is considered an offence. In Brazil's justice code it's called "usage theft" ("furto de uso" in Portuguese). Typical cases involve using someone's else Wi-Fi. There was a somewhat famous case when a person entered in someone's else car (without breaking any part of it) just to sleep inside. – gmauch Apr 24 '23 at 15:52
  • 1
    Title fix appreciated. Much more clear. – ohwilleke Apr 24 '23 at 19:26
  • 1
    This would definitely be breaking and entering in at least some US jurisdictions, where bypassing any mechanism intended to keep someone out counts as "breaking," even down to opening an unlocked door. – A. R. Apr 24 '23 at 19:50

5 Answers5

19

None, if the intention is merely trespassing, unlike burglary which requires intent to steal, commit criminal damage, or inflict grevious bodily harm or if the building is a protected site - neither of which isn't evident from the question.

Note, for both offences, the actus reus is entry - there is no requirement for any form of "breaking"

Further to ohwilleke's comment, unless the lock is damaged or destroyed etc, then there is no offence of criminal damage

  • 1
    What if the lock’s useful value is effectively reduced to zero by the code guessers knowing the combo? I suppose it still retains exchange/resale value if there has been no damage as such. – TylerDurden Apr 21 '23 at 21:23
  • 10
    @Seekinganswers Most locks can be re-keyed or have their combinations changed, so someone figuring out your combination shouldn't make the lock worthless. – bta Apr 22 '23 at 04:10
  • 1
    I was about to comment "it is also burglary if the intent is to rape" - but I see that was repealed in 2004, and replaced with a separate offence. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Apr 24 '23 at 08:50
  • What would be necessary to charge someone with attempted breaking and entering? – supercat Apr 24 '23 at 15:15
  • Does this change if someone else comes along and exploits the security being disabled? – Nat Apr 24 '23 at 23:16
16

This would be breaking and entering contrary to s. 348 of the Criminal Code.

"Breaking" under this offence means "to break any part, internal or external, or ... to open any thing that is or intended to be used to close or cover an internal or external opening" (s. 321).

A person is deemed to have broken and entered if they "enter[] without lawful justification or excuse by a permanent or temporary opening" (s. 350). Even entry through an unlocked door, when it is done without consent, is deemed to be breaking and entering. See Todorov c. R., 2015 QCCA 812.

Jen
  • 54,294
  • 5
  • 110
  • 242
  • Probably some sort of vandalism/destruction of the lock itself charge as well. – ohwilleke Apr 21 '23 at 18:18
  • 8
    Really? By successfully guessing and then entering its correct combination? – TylerDurden Apr 21 '23 at 21:21
  • 3
    @Seekinganswers yes, 'breaking' really refers to circumventing the lock on the door. Whether that is by hitting it with a hammer, or picking it, a crow bar, kicking the door in, or spending an hour guessing combinations until it opens (which is what a safe cracker does by the way), the result is an open door allowing you to walk in. – fabspro Apr 22 '23 at 00:57
  • @Seekinganswers but to answer your real question - if all you did was unlock a lock and walk away, and the lock was undamaged, and nobody saw the unlocked door and went in, and nobody wrote down the combination for later use in further crimes, then sure, it would not be an offence. There may be liability in tort. – fabspro Apr 22 '23 at 01:00
  • 4
    @ohwilleke I don’t see how you could consider the opening of a lock to be “vandalism/destruction”. Locks are usually meant to be opened without damage, after all. Physically, there is no difference from that and someone who knows the combination already opening the lock. – fyrepenguin Apr 22 '23 at 02:14
  • At least in the US, "breaking" is any application of force to get in. Whether something is locked (or even fully closed) is largely immaterial. – BobtheMagicMoose Apr 22 '23 at 06:05
  • @fyrepenguin The title question asks about "brute forcing" a combination lock which I understood to mean smashing and destroying it. – ohwilleke Apr 22 '23 at 19:59
  • 12
    @ohwilleke ahh, that's a mixup of terminology. In terms of combinations & passwords, "brute forcing" simply involves trying many, many guesses until you get it correctly. One might do "1111", "1112", "1113", and so on. For small enough combinations, this is feasible to do manually. No actual physical damage required. – fyrepenguin Apr 22 '23 at 20:03
  • This makes sense to me. I don't always lock my house, certainly not when I'm in it. That doesn't mean you can come in without an invitation. That's trespassing. There's no lock on my garden shed but that doesn't make it public property. – Kate Gregory Apr 24 '23 at 18:35
  • Is entering as a "mere trespasser", as per the OP, an indictable offence in Canada? If not, how is s.348 relevant? –  May 07 '23 at 08:43
10

Unlawful entry on Inclosed Land

Under s4 of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901:

(1) Any person who, without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person), enters into inclosed lands without the consent of the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands, or who remains on those lands after being requested by the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands to leave those lands, is liable to a penalty not exceeding …

There is an additional penalty if you don’t close the door when you leave. Because the Act is primarily about protecting agricultural land and leaving gates open can lead to stock wandering but it is applicable to all land.

Dale M
  • 208,266
  • 17
  • 237
  • 460
  • 2
    "proof of which lies on the person" ─ Does this mean that the burden of proof lies on the person? That would make more sense than my first reading, which was that the person must be carrying the evidence on their person. – kaya3 Apr 22 '23 at 20:57
  • 2
    @kaya3 yes, that’s what it means – Dale M Apr 22 '23 at 21:20
  • NSW also has "unlawfully on premises" offense, like the other states. This is an additional offense -- in Victoria, it is part of the Crimes act. – david Apr 24 '23 at 03:18
5

This answer assumes no intent of wrongdoing other than opening the lock was proven by the prosecution.

Tampering with security devices is a class 4 felony. The bold text below is mine.

(720 ILCS 5/17-11.5) (was 720 ILCS 5/16-22)
Sec. 17-11.5. Tampering with a security, fire, or life safety system.
(a) A person commits tampering with a security, fire, or life safety system when he or she knowingly damages, sabotages, destroys, or causes a permanent or temporary malfunction in any physical or electronic security, fire, or life safety system or any component part of any of those systems including, but not limited to, [...] (a long list of devices) [...].
(b) Sentence. A violation of this Section is a Class 4 felony.

The lock suffered a temporary malfunction, as it was not doing its job of keeping the door closed. The security feature was also sabotaged (though not harmed), not fulfilling its function, when it was left open.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sabotage/

Sabotage is the act of hampering, deliberating subverting, or hurting the efforts of another.

In this case, the efforts of whoever wanted the door to stay locked were sabotaged.

Did the intruder tamper with the lock?

https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tampering/

Tampering is an intentional act of interfering improperly or in a harmful manner. [...]

By switching the lock to "open" without permission, the person exposed the secured area to intruders (and became one in the process). Testing combinations until the correct one was entered is an intentional act. The opening of the lock is harmful as it compromises the security of the venue.

The trespasser, aside from civil charges, can also face 1 to 3 years in prison and fines up to USD 25k. (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-45)

Mindwin Remember Monica
  • 2,072
  • 1
  • 13
  • 20
2

Summary Offences Act 1966, Section 9(1)(e)

without express or implied authority given by the owner or occupier or given on behalf of the owner or occupier by a person authorised to give it or without any other lawful excuse, wilfully enters any private place or Scheduled public place, unless for a legitimate purpose; or

Normally prosecuted as "unlawfully on premises". Note: for whatever reason, section 9 is titled Wilful destruction, damage etc. of property, which makes it a little harder to find. This is a summary offense tried by a magistrate without a jury, so "lawful" and "legitimate" are not complicated legal terms: they limit rather than extend the terms "excuse" and "purpose".

B-K
  • 105
  • 3
david
  • 524
  • 2
  • 8