Forced Entry
I use a very common sense analogy when it comes to forced entry. You lock your keys in your car. You dispatch a locksmith to open the locked vehicle. He can't do any damage or he will be sued. The next day, the same locksmith is working for the insurance company and will state he observed no signs of forced entry. Hmm.....
There are far too many insurance expert reports currently out there that will state: "I observed no signs of forced entry."
Facts stated will be; the door lock(s) were checked for tampering. The weather strips between the door and the pillar were checked. The belt molding appeared to have no damage from recent slim jim use. The windows were in the UP position. Sounds pretty thorough doesn't it. All the facts are there right? Wrong!
One very critical fact that appears never addressed, and we need to ask why. Has the expert made a pre-assumed opinion that this vehicle theft report might be fraudulent? As an expert, this is not your call!!! The insurance client must know that the doors were unlocked at the time of the examination.
Believe it or not, this could make the difference between the claim going to court and if the expert goes to court, his credibility could be in question if he does not address this fact! Trust me, I might be the opposing expert against you and you don't want that!
Many insureds these days rely on the factory fobs (clickers) to lock and unlock the doors. When purchasing the vehicle they are rarely given instructions on its use and many of you locksmiths don't realize all the things that can affect range.
Many vehicles require the lock button on the transmitter to be depressed twice for a confirming beep. the insured may have believed he locked the vehicle when in fact it did not lock. This is a very real problem!
Vehicles by design are not secure. It has been my experience (after examination of thousands of reported thefts) 99.9% of the vehicles I examine are unlocked at the time of my examination. Vehicles are commonly locked or unlocked with a remote transmitter these days. There are so many reasons that the insured may have believed by depressing the lock button in the transmitter that he believed the doors locked, when in fact they did not. Unless the insured goes back to the vehicle every time, he/she will not have anyway of knowing if the doors actually locked.
The problem we currently have with these insurance "Forensic" experts is that their procedures for determining if the vehicle was or was not locked are based on assumed marks that they may or may not observe. It may be stated that the weather strip between the door and the glass had no damage so a tool such a slim jim was not used. This is assumptive that the thief is inexperienced and will do damage.
Then you have the experts that say they can eliminate tools such as a slim jim to manipulate the inner door lock mechanisms by the dust trails. Here is common sense again: These vehicles commonly sit at auto auctions for weeks before they are examined. The lots in these auctions commonly have gravel. What is associated with gravel? DUST!
As stated, many of these forced entry hypotheses are based on what type of damage that expert might do by entering the vehicle without the use of a key or remote transmitter.
I had a report I reviewed on a 2006 Chrysler 300. The report stated the last time the vehicle was unlocked with a key. How would the expert know this? He wouldn't. It sounds impressive. This vehicle is equipped with a fixed blade integrated key. This means the transmitter for locking and unlocking the doors is built into the key. This would be very convenient for the insured to lock and unlock the doors by pressing the button on the key.
The title "Forensic Locksmith" goes to the head of the examiner and it is so very common to see where statements made can no way backed up by any factual evidence.
One can state he can determine there was evidence of forced entry, but like the last key used theory, it cannot factually be determined when.
All so common when it comes to statements about forced entry, they can't be proven and our courts, in my opinion have been misled by the expert into believing that he can actually prove the conclusions about this subject.
Another example I will use: The expert removed the door lock in order to examine it for signs of forced entry. This was only for job justification. It was not considered there was a big gap at the driver's door class where it met the pillar. The molding was missing and the vehicle could be successfully entered by inserting a rod in this gap. In other words there were blatant signs of forced entry, but it was better to use smoke and mirrors by examining the door lock, which had nothing to do with how this vehicle was last entered!
Then there is the forensic expert that actually ruled there was no signs of forced entry observed on a burned vehicle he never physically examined. He stated because there was no denting on the outside door area around the door handle, there was no signs of forced entry.
What he did not elaborate on, that there was no door handle! The vehicle had been destroyed by fire! The door glass and the rubber weather strips were consumed by fire!!! The problem is, that this expert actually generated a report for the court to believe there was no signs of forced entry!
I am the bad guy because I dare question such opinions thrown out as fact! These guys consider themselves as the ultimate source as experts in forced entry and their backgrounds do not reflect that. Their backgrounds as former cops and locksmiths should never be questioned!
Bottom Line: In reality, just due to design of a vehicle, the vehicle is not secure. I do not recommend that anyone give an opinion on forced entry of a vehicle. There are just far too many variables.
All too often that it is assumed a car thief is stupid. Some are, but many are not. I know I am letting the air out of this balloon, but I also know too many ways vehicles can be entered without doing damage. In court, forced entry can successfully be argued.
The last point i will make on this subject, isn't it a little nuts to rely on the opinion of a locksmith for forced entry? How many professional thefts has he seen?