STAMFORD, Conn. (AP) – An attorney for the man accused of being the “dinnertime bandit” said Friday the burglar who tied up a Greenwich woman in her home treated her too politely to warrant a kidnapping charge.

Howard Ehring, Alan Golder’s public defender, cited a recent state Supreme Court ruling in his argument to dismiss the kidnapping charge. The high court rejected kidnapping charges in cases when confining a victim or limiting their movement is merely incidental and necessary to commit another crime against the person.

Ehring says the burglar tied the woman loosely, did not move her much, agreed not to put her in the basement or a closet after she protested, and even asked if she needed an asthma device.

He said that treatment was necessary to commit the burglary, but did not amount to kidnapping under the new interpretation of the law.

“The restraint here was limited to what necessarily had to be done in the furtherance of a burglary, not an abduction or kidnapping,” Ehring said.

But prosecutor Joseph Valdes said the confinement went beyond a burglary and that a jury should decide the kidnapping charge. He said the high court did not require prosecutors to establish any minimal period of confinement or movement of a victim to charge kidnapping.

“That restraint exceeded what is required for a burglary and what is required for a larceny,” Valdes said, arguing the burglar could have fled without tying up the victim.

Stamford Superior Court Judge John F. Kavanewsky Jr. did not issue an immediate ruling.

Police obtained a warrant in 1998 charging Golder with 16 burglaries that netted nearly $1 million in goods between September 1996 and October 1997.

Golder was extradited from Belgium last November. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The burglar was dubbed the “dinnertime bandit” because of his alleged penchant for breaking into wealthy homes as his victims dined.

Police say he burglarized Connecticut’s wealthiest residents by scaling mansion walls wearing a “ninja”-type suit and hood, slipping through second-floor windows during dinnertime while alarms were off and stealing precious jewels.

Ehring also challenged the arrest warrant, saying police misled a judge who signed the warrant by claiming the woman who was tied up told them the burglar had stark blue eyes when in fact, she said he had blue or green eyes.

He also argued that the warrant application left out details that raised credibility issues about Golder’s brother, who allegedly implicated him in the crimes before he died.

Valdes said the issue over the witness’s description of the burglar’s eyes amounted to semantics at most, and noted that the victim picked him out of an array of photos and compared to his eye color to that of a blue-eyed detectives.

Kavanewsky also did not rule on that challenge.

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.