From: ahk@chinet.com

Stephen Sprunk   wrote:
>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.

Never heard of anything of the kind, not that that means much. You've
told us the compartment is secret. Therefore, the cops have done more than
ordered driver and passengers from the vehicle and opened the glove compartment
and other compartments and looked through belongings in the cargo area.
That's comparable to removing panels to look for caches of contraband.

>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.

Huh? A warrant to arrest someone applies to entering private property
without permission to drag someone away, nothing to do with arresting
someone in the public way, which doesn't require a warrant for the
crime the officer is the witness to. That has fuck all to do with
probable cause to search the vehicle.

>>>>>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.

nice backpedal. You're quoted above stating "criminal record", which would
be a record of arrests (and some convictions) for unrelated crimes. If
the crime is related, it would be one of several charges at the same trial.

>>>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.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

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