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)