Driver Arrested In Ohio For Secret Car Compartment Full of Nothing 670
schwit1 writes about the hazards of driving through Ohio in a car with a secret compartment in the trunk. From the article: "Norman Gurley, 30, is facing drug-related charges in Lorain County, Ohio, despite the fact that state troopers did not actually find any drugs in his possession. Ohio passed a law in 2012 making it a felony to alter a vehicle to add a secret compartment with the 'intent' of using it to conceal drugs for trafficking."
This is the first person arrested under the strange law.
Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Insightful)
If it keeps us safe from terrorists, drugs, child molesters, or other Bad Things, anything is okay. Sacrifice all of your freedoms to stop the Bad Things and just be thankful you're living in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Interesting)
That's probably the mindset of the people in my hometown when they set up local statutes, (still on the books today, but unenforced). I am from the Middle of Nowhere. In the Middle of Nowhere it is illegal for; a black person to ride a horse through town, to be out after dark unescorted or to shout in public places.
I'm sure it means the same thing.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Interesting)
Around here, we have a law that doesn't let you hang laundry out to dry on one day of the week. (I forget if it's Wednesday or Thursday.)
Then again, we have another law that lets women go topless on hot days.
Good luck finding those on the internet, despite them being real. The first one hasn't been invoked in a very long time, the second one prevented the arrest of a girl about a decade ago. (There may have been other incidents, but I'm not aware of them yet.)
Links to the relevant information would have been wonderful, but whether you like it or not, most of the law is not yet available like that. If you don't like it, either yell at the lawyers (kind of like tilting at windmills, except more expensive), or start a foundation or project that will resolve the issue by converting all those documents yourself. Good luck Quixote!
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Funny)
"Then again, we have another law that lets women go topless on hot days."
You neglected to mention where you live, and whether the girls are hot to go with the days... :)
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY.
Which is almost as stupid as being allowed to let a child carry on squawking in a public place without leaving to prevent it from annoying other people.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Informative)
Make sure to check you local laws mate, unless you want to be some cop bate.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Funny)
But wait, there's more! [yahoo.com]
In order for a woman to drive a car legally in Memphis, Tennessee, a man must walk or run in front of it while waving a red flag to warn other motorists and pedestrians.
In order to remain in good standing with the law in Forest City, North Carolina, one must call City Hall before entering town in an automobile.
In Colorado, you are breaking the law if you drive a black car on Sundays.
It's illegal to drive a motor vehicle in Redlands, California, unless a man holding a lantern is walking in front of it.
In Glendale, Arizona, it's against the law to drive a car in reverse.
While driving along a country road at night in Pennsylvania, motorists must fire a rocket signal and wait 10 minutes for livestock to clear the road before continuing.
And one of my favorite Arizona laws: You may not have more than two dildos in a house.
There's also this one: When being attacked by a criminal or burglar, you may only protect yourself with the same weapon that the other person posseses.
That makes a real obvious way for criminals to completely run amok in this state: all they have to do is use 3 dildos to attack someone.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, no, it isn't. There may be regulations like that on the books, but they're not enforceable. No court in the US would uphold them.
There are probably a few courts in the US that would uphold them, but they'd be overturned at higher levels.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5)
Frankly, the existence of such laws even if it's impossible to convict on them is scary given the existence of NCIC (National Crime Information Center). Whenever a police officer arrests someone, a record of that arrest is sent to NCIC. Then even if the person arrested is subsequently found innocent or even if the case is expunged by the court, that arrest record remains in NCIC. And to finally top things off, that NCIC database is used by companies to perform background checks of possible and current employees. And many of those companies will not hire anyone who has an arrest record ... even if the person had been found innocent, or if the case was expunged. After all, that tidbit of information isn't stored in NCIC. Merely the arrest record.
So if a police officer wishes to totally screw up someone for life, all they need do is simply arrest the person. For any charge whatsoever. And then let NCIC take care of the rest.
Be afraid, be very very afraid.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Funny)
If it keeps us safe from terrorists, drugs, child molesters, or other Bad Things, anything is okay. Sacrifice all of your freedoms to stop the Bad Things and just be thankful you're living in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Unfortunately, I like to keep all my freedoms in a secret compartment in my car - damn.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, if I had a secret compartment in my car, I would keep a copy of the King James Bible, a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a registered handgun in there.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Interesting)
One of my friends is a defense attorney. He had a client who was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon while walking down the street (open carry is completely legal). The gun was concealed, by a belt holster. Apparently, under the law, having the gun in a holster counts as concealed in my state and the only way to comply is to either carry it in your hand, have it slung or have it classified as a hunting weapon. That's right, a completely visible handgun in a holster is concealed but a hunting rifle hidden in your coat isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
You should watch Hot Fuzz.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Interesting)
I've heard about stuff like what the AC mentioned. From what I understand that particular interpritation is routinely defeated whenever it reaches a judge or jury. Problem is that the person often plea-bargains out, resulting in a 'conviction' without precident.
Even if they know the dude will be able to get off in a trial, it amounts to police harassment to the tune of thousands of dollars to defend yourself. Even if the charges are dropped before significant lawyer bills, it can still add up to harassment along the lines of this poor guy [dailymail.co.uk].
I've also heard where cops take 'concealed' to mean that there's an angle it can't be seen from, as opposed to not being able to be seen from any angle. As such, 'rubber banded to your hip' would still count as concealed if the cop can't see the firearm THROUGH your body. This resulted in jokes about carrying it on the top of your head.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the state. In Ohio, where I live and where the article is about, the law is quite clear. If you have a concealed carry license you can carry it loaded and concealed (or open) in the driver's seat. If you do not have a CCW, the gun must be unloaded and in the trunk or other locked compartment outside the cabi
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Informative)
Just plain wrong. Many states share reciprocity and honor CCP's issued by other states in the union. It's really not that much different from marriage licenses.
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html [usacarry.com]
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, if I had a secret compartment in my car, I would keep a copy of the King James Bible, a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a registered handgun in there.
[sarc]
Terrorist!
Those are far, far worse than illegal drugs!
Carrying a copy of the US Constitution, according to the US government, is an indicator of someone possibly being a domestic terrorist, as is anyone who is a military vet, or a Christian, or a member of the TEA Party, or who talks about making the world a better place.
Enjoy your stay at GITMO.
[/sarc]
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, if I had a secret compartment in my car, I would keep a copy of the King James Bible, a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a registered handgun in there.
The constitution and amendments, I can understand, but please lose the instrument of murder.
And the gun too.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Funny)
In between drug runs I would chose to keep a ziploc bag of dog shit in the secret compartment. That way when I get pulled over and my secret compartment is discovered, if they ask "what do you keep in here?" I'd just say "I keep my shit in there." Then when they start poking and sniffing around they can't say I didn't warn them. I'd like to see them bring me to trial for having a compartment full of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
A friend's kid had some thieves try to get his crop. He scared them off with a 12guage. The cops came.
The only problem the cops had was that the kid had the shotgun loaded with slugs. Which could have gone through a wall and killed an innocent person. They told him to load it with #5 shot. _That_ is good police work.
There have been a number of killings. Mostly thieves, but a few law abiding citizens too.
Re: (Score:3)
Child porn could be kept in a hidden box as well! Better add that to the rap sheet.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to work a convenience store back in college days. Once a day the supervisor would come by and pick up the receipts. The money was enough to make robbery tempting, but not enough to justify a Brinks service. His car had a small key safe incorporated into the bodywork, welded to the frame, and hidden by a false panel. It was big enough to hold the receipts for all the stores under his control, and was hidden cleverly enough to make discovery unlikely if the car was broken into, and perhaps even if the car was stolen. It's interesting to me that such a law would make this legitimate use of hidden compartments illegal.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Insightful)
> It would not. The compartment is not being used for drugs. That seems to be what everyone is glazing over.
As someone else pointed out, the law reads in part ""No person shall knowingly operate, possess, or use a vehicle with a hidden compartment with knowledge that the hidden compartment is used or intended to be used to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance." (Emphasis mine.) How does one gauge the intention of such a compartment?
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
> "Controlled substance" means a drug, compound, mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule I, II,
> III, IV, or V. "
However, even stuffed full of recipts there was plenty of empty space, which, apparently also is a controlled substance.
Re: (Score:3)
Well the article proves having 0% of a controlled substance is all that's required to be arrested.
100% of receipts sure sounds a lot like 0% controlled substance to me.
Why on earth do I think the business man would be arrested? Because it's happened once already, that's why.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Informative)
No, the article proves that having a car that reeks of marijuana and has a secret compartment is enough to get you arrested.
Strangely, they forgot to copy that line from the article that spawned the story.
Re: (Score:3)
If the concealed compartment had been analysed and residues of a controlled substance coated it t
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask the little old lady in Florida who lost her life savings years ago because the thieving government passed a law that says if you have over x amount of cash then you must be a drug dealer. Her family had lost everything during the famous bank collapse and she of course didn't trust banks. They let her out of jail acknowledging she wasn't a drug dealer but AFAIK she never got her money back. She was far from being the only one robbed by the USA Protection Racket.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Informative)
The law should be for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Funny)
Why on earth do you think that a hidden compartment in a car owned by a small business owner who has bank transaction records showing he deposits his business takings in cash to the bank each day/week would run afoul of a law that reads:
"No person shall knowingly operate, possess, or use a vehicle with a hidden compartment with knowledge that the hidden compartment is used or intended to be used to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance."
"Controlled substance" means a drug, compound, mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V. "
He's transporting cash.
Practically all US currency contains traces of cocaine [snopes.com]
Therefore, he is transporting cocaine, a schedule II substance.
Book 'im Danno.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Informative)
This law has nothing to do with our rights or protecting against crime. It serves three things:
1: It provides the police legal ammo to threaten a person with disassembling their ride unless they immediately consent to search.
2: It provides a seized vehicle. Vehicle seizures are big money. Just 1-2 a day of cars can provide a department an added income in the millions of dollars from the police auctions. This is a civil action, so even if found innocent, one's ride is gone.
3: Ohio is notorious for their private prisons. Private prisons have a very strong lobby, and DAs and judges are forced to convict, or next election cycle, replaced by a candidate who will (with plenty of campaign dollars in their war chest coming in.) On March 27, 2012, Ohio signed a contract that they will keep all private prisons 90% full or else pay fines by the diem.
Private prison stock is of course having an Apple-esque rise due to this.
Because of the pressure to keep the private prisons full, it would not be surprising that even the cops on the beat may have an arrest quota, just like a ticket quota, but relying on how many people cuffs go on.
So, this law is a no-brainer. It gets cash-strapped areas free cars to sell, it puts people in the system who end up paying hundreds of thousands regardless of innocence/guilt, and the guilty ones make two private, well-heeled, powerful companies even more richer, on taxpayer dollars (which makes the state even more cash-strapped.)
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Interesting)
Not quite the same thing, but in the UK, we have a crime of "going equipped" – that is, carrying tools of the trade to rob houses etc. It's effectively the same law, just with a different target.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Funny)
"burglarious instruments"
Got their second album.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. As an American, though, I've only ever heart them referred to as hubcaps, and "wheel cover" used for the decorative covering on either a spare tire or steering wheel.
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Funny)
I know Florida has had a law on the books like this for a while and I'm sure other states do as well. I get why they think they need it but it's a serious abuse of our individual rights as it essentially makes it so you are assumed guilty.
Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear! Umm, as long as they don't try to hide the nothing, in which case Gitmo 'em!
Re:Not the only state with this law (Score:5, Insightful)
I know Florida has had a law on the books like this for a while and I'm sure other states do as well. I get why they think they need it but it's a serious abuse of our individual rights as it essentially makes it so you are assumed guilty.
According to the government, you are guilty, you just do not know it yet. The NDAA, the PATRIOT ACT, the changes to the Miranda laws etc, proves you are guilty even before you are arrested, tried and found guilty. The paranoia of a corrupt government justifies any and all actions the Constitution prohibits. The law makers are above the law, the law enforcers are above the law and the law deciders are above the law, therefore you are guilty.
Thought Crimes (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why stop with just hidden compartments that drug runners use? I happen to know (meaning I've seen it on TV) that drug dealers keep drugs in safes, so we should outlaw those too. And safety deposit boxes too. And don't even get me started on those tricky boxes that stage magicians have, they might be used to conceal something.
Also, everybody knows that only terrorists use encryption.
Re: (Score:3)
The giveaway this time? Troopers noticed an overwhelming smell of raw marijuana which gave them probable cause to search the car.
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to what? Cooked marijuana?
Isn't this always the line the police take when they want to shake someone down. "They smelt funny..."
How did they prove intent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How did they prove intent? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We apparently caught them between runs, so to speak, so this takes away one tool they have in their illegal trade. The law does help us and is on our side," says Combs.
Apparently? So, you own a house, and your wife was away for a week. I'm going to slander and libel you for being an adulterer, even if I verified that you didn't have anyone in the house for a week, because you were apparently between mistresses. What a cock-up and an abuse of the legal system.
The law says it’s only a crime if the hidden compartment is added with the “intent” to conceal drugs, but it also outlaws anybody who has been convicted of felony aggravated drug trafficking laws from operating any vehicle with hidden compartments.
Can anyone find the arrest record/docket and figure out exactly how they alleged intent, or that he was formerly convicted of felony aggravated drug trafficking laws? Otherwise, this looks like a money grab to me.
As for the car itself, the Institute for Justice’s 2010 “Policing for Profit” report calculated that law enforcement officials in the state have collected more than $80 million in shared proceeds from asset forfeiture funds. Oh, and the hidden compartment law exempts vehicles being operated by law enforcement officers, so if state troopers can come up with an excuse to use the ride they just grabbed, they may be able to keep it for themselves.
Re:How did they prove intent? (Score:5, Interesting)
The law says it’s only a crime if the hidden compartment is added with the “intent” to conceal drugs, but it also outlaws anybody who has been convicted of felony aggravated drug trafficking laws from operating any vehicle with hidden compartments.
Can anyone find the arrest record/docket and figure out exactly how they alleged intent, or that he was formerly convicted of felony aggravated drug trafficking laws? Otherwise, this looks like a money grab to me.
As for the car itself, the Institute for Justice’s 2010 “Policing for Profit” report calculated that law enforcement officials in the state have collected more than $80 million in shared proceeds from asset forfeiture funds. Oh, and the hidden compartment law exempts vehicles being operated by law enforcement officers, so if state troopers can come up with an excuse to use the ride they just grabbed, they may be able to keep it for themselves.
The bit TFA and TFS omit in the story is that (to quote from the local news source)
Troopers noticed an overwhelming smell of raw marijuana which gave them probable cause to search the car.
Assuming they are telling the truth, there is reason to believe the compartment was in fact used to transport drugs. There are more strict chemical tests they could run on the compartment to tell if it actually did contain drugs in the past which, to be honest, is most likely the case (I grant that not all electronically-sealed secret compartments are used for illegal purposes, but I'd be a little surprised if that wasn't the purpose of the majority).
Re: (Score:3)
What's that I smell? BS? I think we have some probably cause to doubt the police now. Let's search them for past cases and tampering with evidence -- just to make sure...
So the Police might have a "reason" they investigated, but the lack of finding the Marijuana makes the "intent to smuggle" point a bit moot. This is like arresting people for stuff that COULD be used to do wrong, but is not doing wrong.
And the drug laws are dumb anyway, if someone is obviously doing harm, then arrest them on the harm that t
Re: (Score:3)
The giveaway this time? Troopers noticed an overwhelming smell of raw marijuana which gave them probable cause to search the car.
Car smells like pot, they get probably cause, they find a hide, bam, they have intent. The only thing is that I've had cops tell me my car smells like pot before when I don't even smoke pot, nor do any of my friends. They just wanted to search my vehicle. So there is that.
Re:How did they prove intent? (Score:5, Informative)
From the original article (but not any of the ones discussing it, of course):
"Troopers noticed an overwhelming smell of raw marijuana which gave them probable cause to search the car."
I love how people pick and choose their "facts" on these "issues".
The police pulled a guy over, smelled pot, searched his car, and found a hidden compartment. Not necessarily an open and shut case, but not "absurd" like some describe it.
Will be interesting if they do find traces of drugs in the compartment
Re:How did they prove intent? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How did they prove intent? (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks for clearing that up. We were all desperately hoping the missing word wasn't "ass"...
Re:How did they prove intent? (Score:5, Insightful)
And how do we know the officers smelled anything? A five minute internet search can come up with case after case where officers claimed one thing (including writing it up in police reports, testifying in court, etc) and later video evidence proved they were telling bold faced lies (Hollywood Florida Framing, BART shooting, OWS protests, Michael Dehererra Beating, Rodney King, Danziger Bridge shootings, etc), oh I'm sorry they "misremembered" the incident. When an independent lab confirms traces of drugs I'll believe it, Until then I personally don't consider an officers statements to carry any more weight than the suspects.
Re:How did they prove intent? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is an example of a bad Slashdot summary filled with hyperbole. Intent is only mentioned in the law where it relates to building or installing the compartment. These aren't simple boxes hidden under a panel. They're complicated electronic and/or hydrolic devices that require multiple steps to open (turn the wheel all the way to the left, unlock the right side door, recline the seat back and then turn the wipers on once, all in proper sequence). That part of the law was meant to go after the people behind the devices.
This guy would have been picked up based on the sections that forbid him as a prior felon (not clear if he is or not) or if they detected drug residue in the compartment (which the law specifically mentions as a condition for violation). So if he has a clean drug record, no link to building or installing the compartment, and there was no drug residue in the hidden compartment, then his lawyer should have a pretty easy case for defense.
Re:How did they prove intent? (Score:5, Insightful)
then his lawyer should have a pretty easy case for defense
A few years wondering whether you're going up the river (when did the right to a speedy trial become a joke?), the choice between rolling the dice on a trial and accepting a plea bargain even if you did nothing, a few tens of thousands in legal fees, and you're off Scot free. What a reasonable application of an utterly absurd law.
No, legal fees are not 'taken care of if you win'. (Score:5, Insightful)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
No, legal fees are not 'taken care of if you win'. The system doesn't care if you are innocent, the system cares about the system, and obviously anyone who ends up in court has to be a scumbag, right?
For criminal defense cases, you may choose to be represented without charge by an overworked, underfunded public defender who has every interest in resolving your case as quickly as possible via plea-bargaining... regardless of guilt or innocence.
Or you may hire an attorney who is actually being paid to represent your interests, where the cheapest option available is typically in excess of a thousand dollars, substantially more for serious charges or if the case actually goes to a jury trial.
The vast majority of defendants in the American legal system do not have the financial resources to hire an attorney, which is why the vast majority of all criminal charges are settled by plea bargain. Prosecutors have every incentive to pile on the threat of every imaginable charge and use the uncertainty of the outcome of a trial as leverage to coerce a plea bargain, guilty or not, because it works, and because they are almost never held responsible for their unethical conduct even when they commit egregious acts like concealing evidence that would exonerate the accused. [yalelawjournal.org]
Add in unconscionable levels of police malfeasance and corruption on nearly every level, and the result is a criminal justice system that is anything but just. Unless you've got plenty of money. Which is kind of the point.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying I agree with this law, but how do you ever prove intent? How do you prove what somebody was thinking? And yet we seem to do it (or at least pretend like we can do it) all the time. This case doesn't seem all that different.
I mean just the fact that some drugs are illegal to possess assumes that you were either going to use them or sell them to someone who would (i.e. as opposed to doing science experiments with them, or disposing of them, etc). The law presumes you are going to do somethi
Re:How did they prove intent? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well the main difference in these cases is the quantity and whether or not you have a lawyer. The courts are so drug naieve its not even funny. Just today I was looking at pictures from a local "sophisticated grow op" that got busted. They claimed "potentially $1 million worth". Its BS. You can't grow $1 million dollars worth of pot in a residential home in Boston. Sorry. Just not happening. I don't believe it, not for reasonable values of residential home.
A couple of the local pot activists who saw the photos were guestimating maybe $50k in product; tops.
Thing is, what the cops will do, is weigh the whole plant, roots and all, then multiply that by the very lowest quantity, highest markup prices... and call that the value for their press release. Whereas a person selling it has to pick off the flowers, cut the leaves from them, and dry it. It is nearly 2 weeks harvest to market and hours of labor. He maybe gets $2500-5500 per pound depending on quantity and how he sells it. The police will break it down to $20/gram or about 9000/lbs on a quantity thats just insane. Where each of plant of his crop might produce an ounce of usable product, it will be counted as a pound or more.
I have talked to people, devote a whole room to it in their house...and still have to buy to make it between crops just for themselves. However the law here makes no distinction between selling and growing, and only recently added medical distinctions.
Though its funny, if you can afford a lawyer one way or another, its hardly even a big deal. I have seen people get caught transporting almost 80 lbs of pot across state lines.... the entire court process happened over the phone and he basically paid a lawyer a bunch of money and ended up with a few years of probation and some fines. That was in Arizona too.... the private prison state. Good thing he was a citizen.
Re:How did they prove intent? (Score:5, Insightful)
The driver has only been arrested and charged, not convicted.
Too bad the driver still has to pay a lawyer and fight the charge. His arrest record has now been sent out to a 100 background check databases and that he'll have to go through, one at a time, to get it cleared off if he wins. He probably had to post a bond to get out of jail.
Whew, lucky him they haven't proven intent.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Only if you can prove you had no intent to use the compartment you didn't know about
Re: (Score:3)
I think Thomas Jefferson would shoot a legislator in the chest with a musket if he were here to see how modern police, lawyers, legislators, judges, and presidents are "interpreting" The US Constitution.
But above it all, the American public, who for some goddamn reason, simply vote away liberty after liberty. Either in exchange for an Obamaphone,religeous theology in public schools, increased profits, or to protect their safe and liesurly lives... it seems that almost NO ONE is interesting saying no more.
Oh
Re:Strange indeed (Score:4, Informative)
Does this law apply if you buy a used car and you don't even know about the hidden compartment? Surely this can't be Constitutional.
I don't know if this law is written this way, but it is possible to write a law, even a criminal law, with strict liability. That means you're guilty regardless of your intent or even what actions you took to ensure you weren't breaking the law. Nice, huh? Definitely not how things where done in the past. The common law required mens rea (guilty mind). Even absent that, generally due diligence was an acceptable defense. Strict liability in criminal law should be reserved for police states.
We can all sleep peacefully now... (Score:4, Funny)
that this car is is prison.
Easy day in court (Score:2)
> a secret compartment with the 'intent' of using it to conceal drugs for trafficking
Your honor, I swear this was designed for my human trafficking only...
(From here, I can hear lots of of Ohioans happy that their porn was dematerialized...)
Mind Readers? Thought Crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? (Score:5, Interesting)
"intent to distribute" has been in the drug laws for a long time.
"Hate crimes" are pretty close to thought crimes as well. I mean, an assault is an assault and should be punished as one, right? No, they carry extra penalties if the perpetrator was thinking the wrong thoughts while perpetrating the assault.
Child porn is also practically a thought crime now that they've expanded the law to cover fictional cartoons and drawings.
Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking of thought crimes, after watching the recent Jon Stewart bit about "Good Thing? Bad Thing?" I had the following train of thought...
Picture some time in the not-too-distant future. A time where cyber-neural interfaces exist. A time where Facebook has given way to some other type of massive network of "thoughts".
You could be sitting there on your patio and some type of event happens before you. Your brain starts to mull over the options. Should I do this? Should I refrain?
At the same time, that same set of options is turned into a poll. That poll is sent to the cyber-neural interface of billions of others around the world, much in the same way someone would post something to Facebook looking for feedback. Instantly, the billions of others will respond to those options sub-consciously and the results fed back to you.
No longer will it be necessary to learn the difference between right and wrong or to otherwise obligate yourself into making moral choices. Those choices will be provided to you in real time by the collective morality every time someone clicks the neural "Like" button for your thought.
(I admit I was drinking when this idea came to me, but that shouldn't detract from its disturbing nature)
Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Possession of a scale and drugs of almost any quantity here will get you "with intent to distribute" tacked on. An ex dealer I know said all the dealers in town have small personal safes they keep their scales in. That totally confused me until they filled me in on that minor little legal detail. (not that a safe often stops the cops, but apparently it can help)
It is amazing how "intent" can be made illegal. How can you really prove intent without a telepath?
Re: (Score:3)
Massive civil disobedience and campaigns where everyone installs a secret compartment in their vehicles. Like to see them prosecute that shit afterwards...
Unfortunately, the government has already worked out a perfect strategy to defeat mass disobedience. It is called "selective prosecution."
For example, 100% of drivers exceed the maximum posted speed at least by 1 microsecond and by 1 inch per year at least twice per day (on their way to work and back.) There is no technical way to know that you are d
Re: (Score:3)
Law enforcement doesn't know, they only suspect. Hopefully they have a reasonable suspicion (and hopefully a judge holds them to it).
When you go to trial, the judge doesn't know your intent, either. He's there to decide on matters of law. Your intent is a matter of fact. The job of deciding it is up to the people in the jury box.
Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, you see, he's black: http://www.nuttynewstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Norman-Gurley.png [nuttynewstoday.com]
Therefore, he's obviously all caught up in drugs, and the police have done a fine service by removing this violent criminal from society.
Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary is somewhat misleading. Per the linked law:
To enact section 2923.241 of the Revised Code to prohibit designing, building, constructing, fabricating, modifying, or altering a vehicle to create or add a hidden compartment with the intent to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance, prohibit operating, possessing, or using a vehicle with a hidden compartment with knowledge that the hidden compartment is used or intended to be used to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance, and prohibit a person who has committed a first or second degree felony violation of aggravated trafficking in drugs from operating, possessing, or using a vehicle with a hidden compartment.
His intent is irrelevant due to his prior felony conviction. That is what has him in trouble. I imagine the 'intent' clause is mostly for people found with actual drugs or weapons stored in the compartment, in which case their intent is obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the insightful post in this whole mess. All that we really needed. No other posts needed. Seriously.
Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the jury get to hear about prior convictions before deciding on the accused person's guilt. Neat!
Re: (Score:3)
So the jury get to hear about prior convictions before deciding on the accused person's guilt. Neat!
The prior felony conviction for trafficking is what makes possession of the secret compartment a crime.
Is it necessary in a felon in possession of a firearm case that the jury know that the defendant is a felon?
Other jurisdictions seem to think so. Six federal circuits and several states have concluded that the jury must be apprised of all elements of the offense, even status elements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted that if jurors are left in the dark about a key element of the crime, then jurors might question whether the elements submitted to them should constitute a crime at all. Jurors might question why a defendant is being charged with merely possessing a firearm when, under ordinary circumstances, possessing a firearm is legal.
Prior Conviction as an Element of a Crime: The Effect of Stipulations After State v. Warbelton [marquette.edu]
Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or do you believe that all slates are cleaned after jail time is finished?
Only in civilized countries.
It's still total bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
The US has more prisoners per capita and also more total prisoners than any other country on earth. This is a huge drag on the economy. Not only is there a massive cost for keeping all of these mostly non-violent people imprisoned, we are also deprived of their contribution to the economy. Locking someone up often destroys not just their life but the lives of their children and other family members.
Passing more laws against non-violent crimes to lock up more non-violent people is going full tilt in the WRONG DIRECTION!
FTFA:
"We apparently caught them between runs, so to speak, so this takes away one tool they have in their illegal trade. The law does help us and is on our side," says [Lt. Michael Combs with State Highway Patrol].
Lt. Combs is delusional if he thinks his "side" can possibly win their war on drugs. It is possible that outlawing secret compartments is a natural extension of the war on drugs but that just shows how idiotic and insane the war on drugs is. Even if they took away all of our remaining civil liberties, the war on drugs would still be unwinnable. How much more must the American people sacrifice for the sake of this unwinnable war?
OTOH, Mr. Gurley is lucky he was not pulled over in the state of New Mexico where at least two different people have been forced to undergo enemas, colonoscopies, and anal probing [cnn.com] based on acting nervous after a routine traffic stop:
After Eckert was pulled over, a Deming police officer said that he saw Eckert "was avoiding eye contact with me," his "left hand began to shake," and he stood "erect (with) his legs together,"
We are wasting billions of dollars; we are destroying millions of lives; we are militarizing our civil police departments; we are trashing our civil liberties; and we are destroying at least one neighboring country all in the name of a war on drugs that is impossible to win. It is stupid, it is sick, it is insane. It must stop.
Re: (Score:3)
They only need probable cause, a threshold which can be less than 50-50 according to a 1983 Supreme Court decision.
What a joke.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Tire compartment (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As I said elsewhere, my car already has those, made at the factory and described in the user's manual. But what if your car doesn't, and you would like to store money or jewelry while on a road trip? That can't be illegal. Your car will be parked at motels, and that exposes you to the risk of losing your valuables.
Another question is in the word "secret." What does it mean? How secret is secret? What is the threshold of work to classify the compartment as secret? Does a backseat organizer qualify? Does a
How much weed ... (Score:2)
Seriously: "With the 'intent'?" Does Ohio have a concealed carry law? Just stuff a gun or a spare clip in there. Your 'intent' was to keep your weapon safe. Think of the children.
Encryption is next (Score:4, Insightful)
So, next up: A law that makes it a felony for using encryption to conceal evidence of terrorism.
Now they can nail you just for using encryption with your email.
Absolute crock of shit, this case (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how they prove intent here. Empty container -- I could store guns, money, drugs, or *any other valuable item* I don't want exposed and out there for someone to heist by smashing the glass in the vehicle. I don't suppose I have a right to secure my property in any way I see fit? Intent is missing here and the prosecutor is going to have to stretch the truth quite a bit to prove his case.
Read section (I) of the law for the whole story (Score:5, Informative)
(I) This section does not apply to a box, safe, container, or other item added to a vehicle for the purpose of securing valuables, electronics, or firearms provided that at the time of discovery the box, safe, container, or other item added to the vehicle does not contain a controlled substance or visible residue of a controlled substance.
So it's OK to have a hidden compartment in your car as long as it does not contain a controlled substance or visible residue of a controlled substance. For the record, I still think the law is crap but it's not as bad as the article makes it out to be.
Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
As bad as the law is, according to the law's language itself, he shouldn't have been arrested. Here's the last section of the law:
(I) This section does not apply to a box, safe, container, or other item added to a vehicle for the purpose of securing valuables, electronics, or firearms provided that at the time of discovery the box, safe, container, or other item added to the vehicle does not contain a controlled substance or visible residue of a controlled substance.
Only one section of the law mentions the word "intent" and that's in reference to actually building or installing the hidden compartment. So unless this guy also had a prior drug felony, or unless they could show he installed the compartment himself, there's no real case against him. I'm guessing he has a record though, which is why the went forward with the arrest.
Three Felonies a day became Four (Score:4, Interesting)
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent - Harvey Silverglate
From the Amazon synopsis
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.
Millenium Falcon (Score:3)
Han: It's not mine, I'm holding for the wookie!
Chewie: Rraaaaawwwrrrr!
Hide-a-key (Score:3)
So... if I have a hide-a-key compartment under my fender, and I drive through Ohio, I would be guilty of breaking this law. Those boxes are big enough to "smuggle" drugs, certainly, though only in "criminally" personal amounts.
Wow.
Re: (Score:3)
After all the Tesla stories, finally one about potential car implosions!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)