From: stephen@sprunk.org

On 15-May-14 11:58, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>> This law only criminalized having a "secret compartment" in your
>> vehicle that the police can establish (beyond a reasonable doubt)
>> is "intended" to be used to carry contraband.  Basically, the goal
>> is to be able to nail smugglers on return trips when the
>> compartment is empty--assuming you're not smuggling things in both
>> directions.
>
> Can you give me an example of this?

Perp smuggles drugs north in the secret compartment but doesn't get
caught.  Perp then returns south, gets stopped and arrested for having a
secret compartment even though it's empty.  Granted, he wasn't charged
with smuggling drugs, but he still goes to prison and has that on his
record for life, which counts as "nailed".

> You can't "nail smugglers" who aren't smuggling.

The article cited an example of OH actually managing to convict someone
last year with a similar law.

> There could be a non-criminal purpose to a hidden compartment, such
> as thwarting robbers.

See above; the prosecution still has to establish (beyond a reasonable
doubt) that the secret compartment was "intended" to be used for
smuggling, which seems easy enough to defeat in court if you have a
legit purpose for it--and no relevant criminal record.

>> Cops never needed "probable cause" to stop you; they only need
>> "reasonable suspicion".  And the standard for "probable cause"
>> hasn't changed one bit; all that this law does is allow warrantless
>> searches of a vehicle when the cops have probable cause, which many
>> other states and the federal govt already allow--and many courts in
>> PA also already allowed due to existing PA law not being clear on
>> the matter.
>
> I don't know when cops have probable cause to engage in a
> warrantless search for a hidden compartment.

"Probable cause" means that the cops have sufficient evidence to believe
you committed (or still are committing) a criminal act; that is a basic
principle of US criminal law.

The only change here is that having probable cause now gives PA cops
authority to search a vehicle without a warrant, whereas previously it
did not--even though it already gave them authority to arrest the
occupants of said vehicle without a warrant.

> Busted tail light that happens to get busted after pulling over
> the vehicle?

That's the real problem with warrantless searches, and what privacy
advocates don't think about is that it's at least as big a problem for
the prosecution as it is for the defense.

With a warrant, the cops take their evidence to the prosecutor, who then
takes it to a judge, who then decides whether the evidence constitutes
probable cause--and it is rare for a trial judge to overturn a warrant
because there have already been two levels of (theoretically)
independent oversight.

Without a warrant, the cops make the decision themselves--and then the
prosecutor has to deal with the defense attacking that decision at trial
and judges who often decide the search was illegal, which makes
everything the cops found "fruit of the poison tree".  This is a leading
cause of perps beating charges "on a technicality".

S

--
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)