-9-
from both hydraulic arms, but one of the arms was completely
detached from the vehicle. Under these circumstances, we
agree with the dissenting justice that it was ‘a physical
impossibility to remove the hatchback window without gaining
at least minimal access to the protected interior, or the close,
of the vehicle.’ Beauchamp, 389 Ill. App. 3d at 20 (Garcia, J.,
dissenting).
We hold that the State proved an entry for purposes of the
burglary statute.” Slip op. at 6-7.
I disagree. The window in this case is hinged at the roof line and
opens out and away from the SUV. By grabbing hold of the open
window, defendants did not enter the interior of the car. The
majority’s statements that the window was of substantial size and that
defendants had to use more force to remove the window than is
needed to remove a hood ornament does not change this fact. Indeed,
it is precisely because the window was of substantial size that
defendants needed both hands to support it while wrestling it off the
SUV and, if both hands were on the window, they could not have
been in the interior of the vehicle. The majority would have the
defendants grasping the edge of the open window with both hands and
wrenching it off the SUV, while simultaneously placing an unspecified
portion of their bodies into the interior of the vehicle. This scenario is
simply impossible.
The majority also notes that one of the hydraulic arms was
completely detached from the SUV. The implication here is that
defendants did not remove the window by wrestling it off from the
outside. Instead, defendants reached into the interior of the car where
the hydraulic arm was attached and, in some manner, removed the arm
at its base. Thus, according to the majority, it was a “physical
impossibility” to remove the window without gaining access to the
interior of the vehicle. Again, the size of the window compels the
opposite conclusion.
Because the window was of substantial size, the window itself
provided the necessary weight and leverage to rip the hydraulic arm
from its base. Moreover, the majority does not explain how, if
defendants did not use the window for leverage, they were able to
remove the arm. The State failed to introduce any evidence that
defendants possessed a tool capable of prying off the base of the
