From: ahk@chinet.com

Stephen Sprunk   wrote:
>On 17-May-14 12:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>>>> 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 apparently never heard of many things that are true, but that
>does not magically make those things untrue as you seem to think.

I know, Stephen. In fact, I just wrote that in that very sentence.
I think I'll snip the rest because I'm bored now.

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