From: ahk@chinet.com

Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>On 15-May-14 16:32, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>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,

>The compartment isn't very secret if it's in plain sight; it's the kind
>of thing cops would only discover during a search.

I know, Stephen. That's the bit you failed to think through. You have yet
to explain how the suspect's right against search hasn't been violated.

>>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.

>Regardless of what you think, that is indeed the standard to be met, and
>it has in fact been met in at least one case (in OH).

I was asking for you to clarify your own position. You have yet to do so.
I already know what I think.

>>>>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.

>"Prove"?  Not in an absolutely sense, but it will certainly affect
>whether a jury considers their doubts to be "reasonable" or not, and
>that is all that matters in our legal system.

To repeat myself, as you haven't been paying attention, the prosecution
cannot bring up the defendant's criminal record for unrelated crimes.

>For instance, if you were on trial for having a secret compartment and
>claimed that it was for hiding your purse, the jury might buy
>that--until the prosecution points out your prior convictions for
>distribution of narcotics and human trafficking.

Good thing that's a violation of procedure. You seem not to be aware of this.

>>The record of unrelated crimes ...

>I said nothing about unrelated crimes.

You ignore anything that contradicts your position, as expected.

>>>>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.

>Nor does it need to.  There is no such thing as "probable cause to
>engage in a warrantless search"; it is just "probable cause" to believe
>you have committed a crime, and that is what gives them the authority to
>arrest you, search you or, now, search your vehicle.  What constitutes
>probable cause _has not changed in any way_.

This contradicts your position. The cops cannot conduct the search
without violating civil rights. There's simply no cause to conduct that
search. The compartment isn't in plain sight; the cops must not go
looking for it.

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