From: stephen@sprunk.org

On 15-May-14 20:01, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 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.

SCOTUS has already allowed similar warrantless searches of vehicles by
the feds and by other states; take it up with them.

My guess is that if the cops have the authority to arrest someone
without a warrant, then that implies the authority to search the
arrestee's person, and extending that to the arrestee's immediate
vicinity isn't much of a stretch.  That the cops may have not yet
actually arrested the person is moot as long as they _could_ arrest the
person, which is implied by having probable cause.

OTOH, if they only have reasonable suspicion, they can't arrest _or_
search the suspect or his vicinity, either with or without a warrant.
_That_ is what that the 4th Amd. is really about, IMHO.

>>> 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.

My "position" is merely pointing to the facts already in evidence,
whereas your position is to deny them.

>>>> 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.

To repeat myself, as you haven't been paying attention, I said nothing
about bringing up 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.

It's not a violation at all.  If you've been convicted for offenses
relevant to the current case, the prosecution _can_ bring them up.
Establishing your intent to smuggle drugs/people in a secret compartment
obviously makes past convictions for smuggling drugs/people relevant.

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)