Home NEWS Police/Fire Lafayette Police Investigating Tuesday Night Home Invasion Robbery

Lafayette Police Investigating Tuesday Night Home Invasion Robbery


UPDATE – 12:35 p.m. Wednesday: Further information supplied in connection with this case has determined that the three subjects, all masked black males in their 20s, all wearing dark clothing – entered the home and aggressively accosted the residents, man and wife.

The suspects assaulted the male, striking him with an object of some kind, possibly a pistol, and searched the home for valuables. Electronics and other items of value were taken, along with a car taken from the garage.

No description of the stolen car was given.

No direction of flight was available as the victims were bound and unable to free themselves while the trio made their escape.

From the Office of the Sheriff/Lafayette PD:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019, at about 11:00 PM, Lafayette Police Officers were dispatched to a report of a home invasion robbery that happened on the 1100 block of Crestmont Drive in Lafayette.

The incident involved three suspects who were armed with a pistol. The suspects entered the residence through an open garage door. The suspects assaulted a male resident and then restrained both residents. The suspects went through the house, stealing valuables and personal items.

When the suspects left the home, they left both residents still restrained. It took the residents several hours before they were able to get free and call 9-1-1. The residents said that the suspects entered the home around 7:30 PM.

Both victims suffered minor injuries and were transported to a local hospital.  

Lafayette Police Investigations and the Sheriff’s Office Crime Lab responded, and the investigation is ongoing.

Anyone with any information on this case is asked to contact the Lafayette Police Department at (925) 283-3680 or (925) 299-3234. For any tips, email: 94549TIP@gmail.com or call (866) 846-3592 to leave an anonymous voice message.


  1. Here we go again. If the homeowner is armed, the suspects should be shot on site. It’s the only way this will ever end. An eye for an eye. Two can play that game. Criminals don’t fear prosecution. I’ve read the only consequences criminals fear is whether the other guy has a gun. I believe it’s true. Shoot to kill in self defense.

      • How do we know the perpetrators live an the other side of the tunnel? Nothing in this news story implies anything about these savage beasts’ domicile.

        Why the reflexive assumption that this wasn’t the work of our local psychopaths?

        Let’s not forget, Death Row inmate Corry Williams and convicted murderer Scott Dyleski are both products of our very own award winning Acalanes School District.

    • … and we were in our Jam-Jams and bunny slippers, ready for a warm and fuzzy Turkey Day… and now folks are going to want to posse up. We get it, and we extend our sympathies to our neighbors on Crestmont. That couldn’t have been fun.

    • Lethal force for self defense would have unequivocally been morally, ethically, and legally justified under the circumstances reported.

      There are certainly numerous instances where prospective victims successfully brandish a firearm to deter or discharge a firearm to prevent or halt a violent crime. Indeed, I’ve twice been very glad to have had firearm within reach when confronted with criminal malice — once a sidearm and once a shotgun. Thankfully both situations were resolved without gunfire or bloodshed.

      Nonetheless, in MANY instances, surprised victims reaching for defensive weapons spook their assailants, thus instantly escalating a robbery like this into a firefight with multiple casualties.

      In last night’s armed robbery, it sounds like the perps surprised the victims with a pistol, possibly after following the male victim home as got out of his car in the garage (assuming the same MO as the Halloween robbery). A sidearm in the night stand or shotgun in the closet would’ve been useless. Even if he were wearing a sidearm, he would likely have drawn fire from the panicked assailants as he drew his weapon. Intensive tactical training can improve — but not assure good — outcomes when faced with such split second judgments. Those who choose to arm themselves are well served to undergo rigorous, ongoing training and target practice.

      If you face an imminent lethal threat and have a clear shot, by all means, take it without hesitation. Drawing a weapon when you’re outnumbered or already in the assailants’ sights, however, risks inducing a grave miscalculation and may actually increase the danger to those you seek to protect.

      There’s no easy answers in home defense scenarios.

    • Let’s be clear. “the suspects should be shot on site (sic)” An eye for an eye does not require that it be self defense, just that it be an equal response. eye for eye. life for life. No judge. No jury. Instead, self-appointed judge and jury and executioner. So, if “suspects” are to be shot, there is no judgment of the facts, no application of law or due process, just execution. If suspect is guilty, execution. If suspect is suspected, immediate execution. No difference. “Self defense” is irrelevant to your argument.

      • Thank you, David. That is a very important distinction.

        A literal reading of the comment, excluding the final phrase, does indeed imply support for vigilante capital punishment even in the absence of a clear and present threat. Notwithstanding commentator’s enthusiasm for deadly force and inconsistent usage of “suspects” and “self defense,” inclusion of the latter phrase reasonably connotes an intention to limit the scope of deadly force to bon fide self defense scenarios. Unfortunately, even those who cannot discuss such grave public safety issues with the appropriate degree of linguistic precision enjoy Second Amendment rights.

        We should all be careful when walking next door to borrow sugar.

  2. I believe most media outlets will provide a description, if the police provided one. What I don’t understand is why a description isn’t always given. Are police holding back or victims failing to provide one? Even if someone is wearing a hoodie or gloves, you can see their neck and their wrists. You can also see their height, weight, hair and eye color, approximate age, and what they were wearing. If you look hard enough. Without a description. who are we supposed to be on the lookout for?

  3. Holiday season is here. Please be extra vigilant. Regardless of your zip code. Criminals prey on communities like this. Turn exterior lighting on at night, lock car doors and house doors, get a security camera, don’t leave garage doors open, be aware of your surroundings, don’t hesitate to report suspicious behavior, etc. If you have a gate leading up to your front door, lock it (especially at night). Criminals don’t care and they know the criminal justice system, especially in the Bay Area, doesn’t have any teeth. Be safe out there.

    • Empirical data belies the unduly alarmist contention that “criminals prey on communities like this.”

      While it is true that violent criminals accost victims in affluent communities, as was the case last night and on Halloween, the vast majority of America’s violent crimes take place in economically challenged neighborhoods. The victims and assailants overwhelmingly reside in the same neighborhoods, oftentimes only a few blocks apart.

      It is also misleading to aver that “the criminal justice system, especially in the Bay Area, doesn’t have any teeth.” On the contrary, the events described here constitutes first degree robbery of an inhabited structure using a firearm in concert with two or more other people. See Cal. Penal Code sections 213(a)(1)(A), 1170.84, 1192.7(c), and 12022.53.

      Section 213(a)(1)(A) prescribes a prison sentence of 9 years for the robbery with circumstances of aggravation under section 1170.84 for “tying, binding, or confining” PLUS a 10 year enhancement, under Section 12022.53, for use of a firearm.

      That’s 19 years, MINIMUM.

      To put that in perspective, most 19 year olds are college sophomores. Assuming these guys will be also prosecuted for a litany of other violent felonies once caught or have two prior violent felony convictions, they will rightly remain incarcerated until they’re elderly, if not indefinitely.

      If you’ve ever spent an hour in a Level 3 or 4 state prison, you would appreciate that the law does indeed have “teeth.”

      • Laws say a whole lot of things about the associated penalties. Yawn. All bark. No bite. Laws don’t deter people from committing crime. Actually ENFORCING the penalty does. To the maximum allowable. Call me when Alameda and CoCo county start handing out that much time. To your 213a1 PC reference, I’ve WORKED in the criminal justice system for 17 almost 18 years, 16 in Alameda County, 2 in Contra Costa County; neither are handing out 19 year sentences for this. Well, at least not in the time I’ve spent in court.

        • Those with a sound understanding of the criminal justice system understand that authorities don’t just “hand out” prison sentences.

          Prosecutors diligently evaluate the record in each case presented by law enforcement. In so doing, they consider the likelihood that admissible evidence will suffice to make a factual showing that meets the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt necessary to establish criminal guilt given the elements of the alleged crime. After weighing the facts and circumstances against any exculpatory evidence. Only then do prosecutors file charges by information or indictment.

          Thereafter, the accused has a right to legal counsel and the opportunity to challenge the legal bases of the case, impugn the government’s evidence and impeach prosecution witness testimony at trial. A guilty verdict is rendered only if the trier of fact — typically a jury — determines that the prosecution has established each element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In this vein, jurors and judges are duty bound to evaluate the state’s evidentiary record and prosecutors’ factual contentions through a lens of skepticism.

          Only then does the inquiry turn to sentencing, which hinges on the facts and circumstances PROVEN at trial. All of this due process is constitutionality enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

          So the observation that authorities don’t just “hand out” entrances is spot on. We must all be grateful to live in a country where that is the case.

    • Randy, it is the nature of what we do that we often come across information outside of that handed out by authorities. That said, it is our policy never to divulge information that could put a victim in further danger or to knowingly hinder the course of an investigation.

  4. I feel like a broken record, but this seems highly likely to have been a targeted event, not indicative of our community being “more dangerous” in general. A crew like this does not show up for “laptops and valuables” available in every unoccupied home in the bay area. They were after something specific. Presumably drugs or money connected to the sale of drugs. Still horrible.

    • I would agree but rather than slander the victims as connected to some sort of illegal activity I would say we look at other local crimes of this type. While some (Moraga) was because of the reason (weed) you mention others have been because the perps saw the victim in a nice car, flashing a nice piece of jewelry (Rolex) or because they were known to have something else the dirtbags wanted. One of the many motivators no one seems willing to mention except for those threatening violence on the burglars AFTER THE FACT is – GUNS. From what we can see on Facebook and elsewhere after these crimes, people seem to have guns and it would seem to me a criminal would be really interersted in robbing a house where guns were present. Just a theory and I am waiting for further details like everyone else.

      • Years ago, most home invasions were drug related. Drug dealers were targeted for money and drugs. Period. Times have changed. With the exception of the weed dealer in Moraga, Lamorinda is being targeted by thugs coming through the tunnel. Lamorinda is a wealthy area, and any given home has more than enough for these thugs to re-sell and support their drug or unemployment habit.

        This story doesn’t mention drugs or money being stolen. They stole electronics, other valuables and their car. If they didn’t drive in in their own vehicle, they took BART to Lafayette, and made their way through Happy Valley. Anyone who is familiar with Lamorinda could easily figure this out.

        An open garage door could be targeted or random, but if they came on BART, I think an open garage door was random. They were looking for an “easy entrance” and they found one.

        • “Thugs coming through the tunnel” are not the only violent maniacs who pose a threat to our community. The reflexive assumption that violent crime in Lamorinda is the exclusive purview of “outsiders” (a term oft used in local discourse around such matters) naively ignores endogenous threats to property and public safety.

  5. Keep lying to yourself Campo. Your speaking from your emotions.

    Go look at the statistics and the come back to comment. Go find the facts.

    • I totally agree. Snowflakes don’t know the meaning of the words when it comes to reason, logic, facts and statistics. It hurts their “feelings.” Defending thugs is as pathetic as pathetic can get. We have an easier chance of winning the lottery than getting snowflakes to deal with REALITY.

      • Comments crowing about “facts and statistics” while citing none underscore the narrative imparted by our community’s homogeneous groupthink.

        A cursory survey of Lamorinda murders over the past couple decades reveals that the perpetrators are approximately as likely to be neighbors, friends or relatives as “outsiders” from the other side of the tunnel or anywhere else. All are “thugs,” irrespective of zip code or income.

        Nobody in this thread has defended thugs, so suggestions in that vein and resort to petty slights and labels underscore an emotionally driven rigidity that perpetuates false narratives and precludes objective risk assessment.

Leave a Reply