Wyoming Statutes

Wyo. Stat. § 6-3-304 (2026)

Possession of burglar's tools; penalties.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A person is guilty of possession of burglar's tools if
he possesses an explosive, tool, instrument or other article
adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or
facilitating the commission of a crime involving forcible entry
into buildings or occupied structures with intent to use the
article possessed in the commission of such a crime.

     (b) Possession of burglar's tools is a felony punishable
by imprisonment for not more than three (3) years, a fine of not
more than three thousand dollars ($3,000.00), or both.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1981–2010 · leading case: Luftig v. State, 2010 WY 43 (Wyo. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Luftig v. State, 2010 WY 43 (Wyo. 2010). · cites it 2× “Luftig was also initially charged with possession of burglar's tools in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-304 (a) (LexisNexis 2009), but he was not bound over to the district court on that charge.”

Sears v. State, 632 P.2d 946 (Wyo. 1981). · cites it 2× “1977, for definitions of "actor," "victim," "sexual contact" and "intimate parts" [5] and to the subsections specified in § 6-3-304, W.S. 1977, [6] and inserting the information *952 therefrom in place of the defined words and references in such section, the same would read…”

United States v. Singleton, Carlos T., 182 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “Taken literally, the government's temporal relationship theory suggests that obviously non-violent crimes such as felonious possession of burglar’s tools could qualify as violent offenses because they often occur contemporaneously with a violent offense, such as burglary.”

State v. Warner, 696 P.2d 1052 (Or. 1985). “2-94 (1982); *644 Wyo Stat § 6-3-304 (1983). Texas, West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota and Arkansas appear to be the only states without a current proscription against possession of burglar’s tools.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.