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)