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)