From: ahk@chinet.com

Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>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".

No, that makes no sense, Stephen. You failed to think this through.
Unless that secret compartment was in plain sight, he can't get arrested
for it, and there's no way to prove that the purpose of the compartment
was smuggling, you know, the criterion "beyond a a reasonable doubt" you
said would have to be met in your precursor article.

>>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.

The criminal record doesn't prove shit. The record of unrelated crimes isn't
evidence against one in the crime he's on trial for.

>>>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.

You haven't given us an explanation as to what probable cause the cops
have to conduct that warrantless search. The law doesn't create any.

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