From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   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.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   In the case in Ohio, the cops found wires where there shouldn't be any   
   and followed them to a secret compartment.  The wires were not "in plain   
   sight" but rather were discovered during a search of the vehicle.   
      
   >> 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 ...   
      
   No, Adam, we're talking about what cops can do _without_ a warrant.   
      
   Try reading what was actually written rather than, as you usually do,   
   stuffing words in my mouth so you'll have something to argue with.   
      
   >>>>>> 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.   
      
   I said "relevant criminal record", i.e. the part of their criminal   
   record that is relevant to the current charges.   
      
   > If the crime is related, it would be one of several charges   
   > at the same trial.   
      
   I said "relevant", not "related".   
      
   If you're on trial for doing X, then the fact that you were previously   
   convicted for doing X (or something similar to X) is certainly relevant,   
   so it _can_ be brought up by the prosecution.   
      
   What the prosecution _can't_ do is bring up is a charge that was   
   dismissed or that you were acquitted for.  If they try to bring up a   
   conviction that is not relevant, the defense will object and have it   
   stricken from the record, which makes the prosecutor look stupid in   
   front of the jury and casts doubt on their case, so they won't do that   
   either.   
      
   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)