From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   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".   
      
   > You can't "nail smugglers" who aren't smuggling.   
      
   The article cited an example of OH actually managing to convict someone   
   last year with a similar law.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   > Busted tail light that happens to get busted after pulling over   
   > the vehicle?   
      
   That's the real problem with warrantless searches, and what privacy   
   advocates don't think about is that it's at least as big a problem for   
   the prosecution as it is for the defense.   
      
   With a warrant, the cops take their evidence to the prosecutor, who then   
   takes it to a judge, who then decides whether the evidence constitutes   
   probable cause--and it is rare for a trial judge to overturn a warrant   
   because there have already been two levels of (theoretically)   
   independent oversight.   
      
   Without a warrant, the cops make the decision themselves--and then the   
   prosecutor has to deal with the defense attacking that decision at trial   
   and judges who often decide the search was illegal, which makes   
   everything the cops found "fruit of the poison tree".  This is a leading   
   cause of perps beating charges "on a technicality".   
      
   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)