Slashdot Mirror


Driver Arrested In Ohio For Secret Car Compartment Full of Nothing

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.

670 comments

  1. Not the only state with this law by EvilSS · · 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.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    1. Re:Not the only state with this law by cheekyjohnson · · 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.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:Not the only state with this law by flyneye · · 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.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    3. Re:Not the only state with this law by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:Not the only state with this law by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    5. Re:Not the only state with this law by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So did he. It was full of nothing.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    6. Re:Not the only state with this law by mattie_p · · Score: 5, Informative

      Make sure you have a "carry concealed" permit for the pistol, otherwise you might otherwise face charges anyway.

    7. Re:Not the only state with this law by roc97007 · · 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.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    8. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, 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.

      I do the same with my asshole when flying to the states, except of course for the registered handgun.

    9. Re:Not the only state with this law by BlueStrat · · 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

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · 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.)

    11. Re:Not the only state with this law by beelsebob · · 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.

    12. Re:Not the only state with this law by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, 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!

    13. Re:Not the only state with this law by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Hmm... this sounds like a golden opportunity for municipalities looking for new ways to be assholes toward homeless people... With the correct local legislation, it should be possible to convict them for 'vagrancy' or some such nonsense, then lease them to Ohio at a rate just lower than the fines they would otherwise be paying for those unfilled hospitality units!

    14. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    15. Re:Not the only state with this law by slick7 · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    16. Re:Not the only state with this law by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      Child porn could be kept in a hidden box as well! Better add that to the rap sheet.

    17. Re:Not the only state with this law by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Boy, they would hate my car. I have a crowbar (easiest way to get the hubcaps off, just had a flat last night, actually) in there! Also, in my state, Massachusetts, it's only illegal to carry "burglarious instruments" in the actual commission of a crime (and I do own locksmithing tools, as a member of the locksport community).

    18. Re:Not the only state with this law by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      > "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.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    19. Re:Not the only state with this law by dissy · · Score: 2

      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.

    20. Re:Not the only state with this law by Oysterville · · Score: 1

      Shut up and take my civil liberties!

    21. Re:Not the only state with this law by Matt_Bennett · · Score: 0

      A hidden compartment in the car, is, essentially, security through obscurity. If someone knew enough that the supervisor had the receipts, they probably know enough to tear the car apart looking for the safe. What you get with the Brinks truck (or the big vault door at the bank) is a big showy way of saying that what I have is protected- which would draw in the folks that don't really know what they are looking for- think "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"

    22. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    23. Re:Not the only state with this law by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      How exactly does one hide a hunting rifle in a coat? (but your point stands, it's ridiculous)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    24. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So long as it's unloaded and the ammo is somewhere you can't readily get to (ie. the trunk), they couldn't bust you for a gun in your car. They might get you for the hidden compartment though.

    25. Re:Not the only state with this law by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      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.

      From the way the summary reads, that is just fine. It's only if the intent is to "conceal drugs for trafficking". Of course, I'm not sure how in the hell you prove intent without said drugs being in there.

      Oh, wait. I forgot the times we live in; "freedom" and "rights" are now considered illicit drugs.

    26. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whatever - idiot - link us to those laws if they exist!

    27. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      a black person to be out after dark unescorted

      Seeing two eyes float around in the dark would be spooky.

    28. Re:Not the only state with this law by Demonantis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would not. The compartment is not being used for drugs. That seems to be what everyone is glazing over. Where I live it is perfectly legal to enter someones home unless you intend to commit a crime so you can save someone shouting for help. You can own lock picks unless you intend to use them to commit a crime. Same thing with masks. You are allowed to have a compartment unless you plan to use it for drugs.

    29. Re:Not the only state with this law by JustOK · · Score: 2

      You should watch Hot Fuzz.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    30. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By hub caps do you mean wheel covers?

    31. Re:Not the only state with this law by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately (?), "vagrancy" does not usually land one in prison. Just the county jail, usually for the night. Prisons are generally only for felonies.That's why they're profitable for private contractors. The tenants are locked into long-term contracts. (And more than usual, this isn't legal advice.)

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    32. Re:Not the only state with this law by Albanach · · 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.

    33. Re:Not the only state with this law by kermidge · · Score: 1

      I first heard them called hub caps circa '54; I may have heard of wheel covers before your post but can't recall when.

    34. Re:Not the only state with this law by compro01 · · Score: 4, 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
      Therefore, he is transporting cocaine, a schedule II substance.

      Book 'im Danno.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    35. Re:Not the only state with this law by arth1 · · 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.

    36. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vagrancy was thrown out as a charge, but there are a lot of ways that a city can deal with homeless people:

      If someone is arrested and taken to Riker's island, they owe the jail $150 immediately, as it is on the books and has to be paid before they can hit commissary. If someone doesn't have the cash to pay it, they are re-charged because they didn't pay the bill. Of course, they can spend two weeks working that off as a "trustee" mopping floors.

      Columbia, South Carolina has a "homeless shelter" set up which people are whisked off to, that is 50-100 miles away from the city limits. When someone is released from jail, they are dumped there.

      The ironic thing... it probably will be a shitload cheaper to provide basic mental healthcare services than to keep them in pens. However, mental healthcare offices don't benefit a private company's stockholders, so it won't be done.

    37. Re:Not the only state with this law by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      1) There are actually several homeless shelters in Columbia, SC.

      2) If you're referring to that thing the city council passed a few months back, that shelter is about 10-12 miles outside Columbia city limits. I don't believe it's open yet, either. Certainly, the homeless people a couple blocks away from the Judicial Center (read: courthouse) don't seem to be worrying too much about it. Yet.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    38. Re:Not the only state with this law by Sentrion · · 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.

    39. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check you compartment. You'll find its now empty.

    40. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% of the bills in my wallet contain traces of human shit. I know because I rolled them up and stuffed them in my ass.

    41. Re:Not the only state with this law by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      I built a very secure box into the floor of my pickup truck in Florida. It had nothing to do with dope at all. It did have to do with transporting gold and cash and not wanting to suffer a robbery. Otherwise any time I left the truck I would have had to carry valuables as a broken window is all a crook would need to steal my stuff. I do wonder just how the courts can accurately judge whether a person has intentions of concealing dope or not.

    42. Re:Not the only state with this law by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that when society gets too far out of control your freedoms will totally vanish. Issues are not always as simple as they appear to be. I wonder how many people in California who own a pot plant have had issues with raids by thieves on their properties and homes. How much police response has been required over complaints of people scurrying about trying to steal some buds? Have there been any murders?

    43. Re: Not the only state with this law by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      hung by the sling butt down in an outback coat or similar. I've never carried it out like this but I can hide my Peruvian Mauser under my coat OK. It helps that I'm 6'7"...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    44. Re:Not the only state with this law by Firethorn · · 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.

      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.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    45. Re:Not the only state with this law by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      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.

      Not in Ohio, where this arrest took place: while there is a law about secret car compartments, it is illegal for any government, state or local, to establish a gun registry per the Ohio Revised Code. So there would be no place to register your handgun.

      This law is stupid, but the gun laws in Ohio are overall above average in my opinion.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    46. Re:Not the only state with this law by nephorm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do you mean the 33 year old stripper whose life savings was confiscated while it was in transport to purchase a nightclub? Daily Mail

    47. Re:Not the only state with this law by davester666 · · Score: 1

      ..hunting rifle hidden in your coat...

      Another new meaning to "yeah, I'm happy to see you."

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    48. Re:Not the only state with this law by The+Snowman · · Score: 2

      So long as it's unloaded and the ammo is somewhere you can't readily get to (ie. the trunk), they couldn't bust you for a gun in your car. They might get you for the hidden compartment though.

      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 cabin (e.g. truck lock box). The ammunition can be anywhere except where the gun is. So you put the gun in a bag in the trunk, and the ammunition in a bag up front.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    49. Re:Not the only state with this law by meerling · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You'd be amazed how many local regulations are NOT on the internet, or even in an electronic form.
      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!

    50. Re:Not the only state with this law by gagol · · Score: 5, Informative

      You sure are lonely and blue, following this link you will make it through : http://dumblaws.com/

      Make sure to check you local laws mate, unless you want to be some cop bate.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    51. Re:Not the only state with this law by gagol · · Score: 1

      You need a long Matrix style trench coat... and sunglasses ;-)

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    52. Re:Not the only state with this law by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      and if you walk around with a gun in your hand you're free game to be shot?

      nice laws.

      (and as for some.. how do you hide a rifle in a coat? have a long coat. what do you think syndicate style trenchcoats are for?)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    53. Re:Not the only state with this law by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 2

      Yes, according to Wikipedia. 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.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    54. Re:Not the only state with this law by gagol · · Score: 0

      Unnamed low life homeless : "Opium is my religion, and I see dead people!"

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    55. Re:Not the only state with this law by gagol · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you guys, but I have mags...

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    56. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I would have to agree to some extent. I prefer to keep Christians and members of the tea party away from my children.

      Yeah, those insidious people who run homeless shelters and soup kitchens, and worst of all, want to allow you to keep more of your own money and allow you more individual freedom could infect your little loin-spawns with opposing views and inspire critical thinking!!!!!!!1one11! OMFG!! Noooo! All must be of the Body!! Praise Landru!..err...Pelosi!

    57. Re:Not the only state with this law by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I do wonder just how the courts can accurately judge whether a person has intentions of concealing dope or not.

      Not a lawyer, but I believe you'd need to somehow prove it 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Going by my limited experience factors I'd consider, both for/against:
      1. Being a known drug dealer/mule
      2. Being able to express a logical non-drug reason to have a safe - CCW(discrete & reasonably secure firearm storage when you go to an area you can't carry), receipt delivery, expensive jewelry, etc...
      3. Drug dog* alerting on hole, even if empty
      4. Whether I believe the hide is designed to evade casual theft or police search. If it requires seven steps to open, it's not designed to stop the 'average' car thief from finding it, it's designed to try to evade the feds.

      *Personally I'd want to see whether said drug dog was accurate. Given that there's detectible amounts of drugs on any given piece of cash; I don't go for 'We detected XYZ drugs within the compartment where the stated use is transferring store receipts; I require it be absolutely filthy with trace amounts.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    58. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure that is the same thing Hitler told the Germans when he was putting them in concentration camps. I sure how you are being sarcastic.

    59. Re:Not the only state with this law by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > or intended to be used [...]

      And how do they determine that, I wonder?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    60. Re:Not the only state with this law by Pubstar · · Score: 2
      Because, if you RTFA, it says this

      The giveaway this time? Troopers noticed an overwhelming smell of raw marijuana which gave them probable cause to search the car.

    61. Re:Not the only state with this law by bemymonkey · · Score: 4, 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... :)

    62. Re:Not the only state with this law by roc97007 · · Score: 4, 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?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    63. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the talk page? Funny stuff. Anyway, calling it a hub cab is silly because most of the wheel isn't the hub.

    64. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't need a secret compartment then...

    65. Re: Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ever swabbed a low denomination bank note/bill for cocaine? Between that and large sums of cash bring used as evidence of drug dealing, you might want to think twice before trying to use the shop takings as evidence you weren't smuggling drugs...

    66. Re:Not the only state with this law by sjames · · Score: 1

      The compartment in TFA was empty.

    67. Re:Not the only state with this law by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 2

      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..."

    68. Re: Not the only state with this law by PC_THE_GREAT · · Score: 1

      Hmm land of freedom, biggest joke. When all those laws were passed where were you people? Lol you guys seems to have been conned by politicians to be having such laws where the state basically owns you. Ranting about it on the internet wouldnt fix anything now. You are part of the problem because you guys have contributed with your silence and innaction. It is pointless to now come forward and say that such laws are stupid.

    69. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Each contained in a series of puzzle boxes.

    70. Re:Not the only state with this law by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Make sure you have a "carry concealed" permit for the pistol, otherwise you might otherwise face charges anyway.

      If the compartment was lockable, wouldn't it count as a "gun safe"?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    71. Re:Not the only state with this law by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And who doesn't love opium? Tasty tasty opium.

    72. Re: Not the only state with this law by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It's not a law in my state, thank you very much(compartment law), plus remember it's the cops making a very creative interpretation of 'concealed', not actual law, that has them arresting people with OC belt holsters for CCW because it's not visible from their left side(for a right sided carry). Remember that different states are different, heck even moving within a state can expose you to vastly different law enforcement styles.

      I've written legislaters before, snail-mail, and dropped them an electronic message far more often. Any cop arguing that a gun was concealed My state has, on average, gotten rid of controls on individuals, not increased them, in the time I've been there.

      Oh, and X- a rifle is easy enough to 'hide' in a coat if the coat is big enough. I could hide a bazooka in my parka. The only requirement is that it's concealed enough that you can't go 'yep, it's a gun' from the sight of the package.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    73. Re:Not the only state with this law by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      How exactly does one hide a hunting rifle in a coat? (but your point stands, it's ridiculous)

      A carbine? There are also numerous folding hunting rifles freely available that can be concealed under a coat. Needless to say they are very popular with poachers and have been for at least the last two centuries.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    74. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

      Let me get this straight... AFAYK she never got her money back so let's assume she didn't and rant about the evil government. How about this: [Citation needed] so call us when you:
      a) Have actually proven that this is not some 'cook something up to to get our ultra conservative readers their daily dose of outrage over their morning coffee' type story made up by a right wing rag.
      b) If option 'a' is not the case and this is a genuine story, try to find out if she actually did get her money back or not before you accuse the US govt. of theft.

    75. Re:Not the only state with this law by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      "burglarious instruments"

      Got their second album.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    76. Re:Not the only state with this law by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      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.

      That wouldn't work for me, I'm too tall.

    77. Re:Not the only state with this law by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Yes, security through obscurity is a bad idea. What they should have done, is use a completely transparent but strong container clearly visible through the back window, secured with a lock running Linux. That ought to keep the bad guys at bay.

    78. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might keep you dafe from parents of said children, if they happen to buy a used car with hidden compartment, and then get jailed for driving it. Sounds great, well done america. Good luck for everyone actually living there. I feel kinda sorry for you, and yet at the same time really don't, as those laws are all self inflicted.

    79. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. SInce when has the smell of something been illegal? And how the fuck would I know what marijuana smells, it's illegal and I haven't had any contact with it whatsoever. Yeah the car I bought had a funny smell, but should I know what some forbidden substance smells like?

      I bet the driver had pockets also. Hidden compartments for transferring crack right there!

    80. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is actually so fucked up I'd rathrer live in some african dictatorship than in a place you describe. At least the dictator may decide to not imprison more people just because his prisons have more room. For fucks sake do you even realize how dangerous that kind of deals and laws are?

    81. Re:Not the only state with this law by qbast · · Score: 1

      Eh, you are just not creative enough. Make it Vagrancy With Intent To Do Something Evil (as apparently empty box is good enough to 'prove' intent to sell drugs), throw in some freebies like resisting arrest and assaulting a cop, then add 3 strikes law and you have good enough "product" for sale to Ohio prisons.

    82. Re:Not the only state with this law by N1AK · · Score: 2

      You're right, in a sense. In this case that's what happened. However if that is evidence enough to 'prove' the driver knew it was being used to conceal a controlled substance then we don't know whether for example: being found to have trace amounts of a drug in your blood stream would be enough, having been at a party where someone bought or used a drug, having a friend who got busted for dealing cocaine etc.

      If the concealed compartment had been analysed and residues of a controlled substance coated it that's one thing. I'm not entirely sure that your car smelling strongly of cannabis should be enough to prosecute you.

    83. Re:Not the only state with this law by N1AK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Depends where you are I suppose. Are you black and look like you have too much money for someone of 'your kind'? Then you're probably concealing drugs. An upstanding white congressman *cough* *cough*? Carry on about your day sir, sorry to inconvenience you.

    84. Re:Not the only state with this law by N1AK · · Score: 0

      And calling American Football that is silly because it's mostly played with hands. So. Fucking. What. It's still what people call it so move on ;)

    85. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting to me that such a law would make this legitimate use of hidden compartments illegal.

      Legitimate?

      Please. Your supervisor has no need to own a drug concealment device. If he's accosted by ne'er-do-wells, he can simply call the police, who will magically fucking teleport to his location instantaneously in time to prevent him from being killed.

      Guns are bad, trust the government, rah rah rah.

    86. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what was the evidence that the car "reeked of marijuana"? The word of the police, which (given their track record) is worth less than toilet paper?

    87. Re:Not the only state with this law by hattig · · Score: 1

      I.e., it's a thought crime, when used on its own as the only evidence.

      The "reek of marijuana" is another piece of evidence - of course this is the police's word against the owner, although I'm sure they'll get the car analysed for traces of the drug itself which should be present.

      More likely it should be used as supporting evidence in a case against drug dealers, showing intent to deal even if not caught dealing but with a lot of drugs on them.

      What's the point of a hidden compartment if you leave the wires around to be seen? Or did the cops tear the car apart and get lucky? Sounds like a poor installation job to me though - probably better to leech some power from the taillight power cable and have an Arduino+WiFi module driving the locking mechanism, and unlock it remotely via a phone app.

    88. Re:Not the only state with this law by peragrin · · Score: 1

      you do realize each state has their own carry concealed laws and they are not compatible with each other right?

      So your license to carry a gun in TX is fine, but you get arrested for it in the other 49 states.

      we talk about having one set of gun laws, but we have 51 sets of guns laws(50 states and then federal)

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    89. Re:Not the only state with this law by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Bill Bailey: "Marx said Religion is the opium of the masses, but surely opium is the opium of the masses."

    90. Re: Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If, as you say, we should sacrifice our "freedom". How can we STILL be living in the home of the "free"? Doesn't giving up freedom mean losing it!!?!?!

    91. Re:Not the only state with this law by Arethan · · 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

    92. Re:Not the only state with this law by oobayly · · Score: 1

      They'd probably do you for "assaulting a police officer".

    93. Re:Not the only state with this law by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      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.

      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.

    94. Re:Not the only state with this law by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Right. If he's black, he'll probably just get a beating right there on the roadside, and probably charged for assaulting the officer's fist with his face.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    95. Re:Not the only state with this law by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      A hunting rifle can legally have an overall length of 26 inches. Doable, I think, particularly if you're a big man. You could strap it to your back.

    96. Re:Not the only state with this law by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      The compartment is not being used for drugs.

      Neither was the compartment the guy was busted for. The police's argument seems to have been, "Well, it coulda been used for drugs."

    97. Re:Not the only state with this law by cupantae · · Score: 1

      So, in the interests of everyone's safety, people should keep their gun in hand at all times. Seems fair enough.

      --
      --
    98. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

      I think you forgot a copy of the Magna Carta needs to be in the hidden compartment. For bonus points keep your attorney's / lawyer's / barrister's business card in the compartment.

    99. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear some crazies keep a spare tire hidden in the trunk. open the trunk and you can't see it, concealed! those people should be arrested and given a good beat down. even if its a minivan with mom and kids - they are just child molesting, terrorist drug smuglers! the horror!!

    100. Re:Not the only state with this law by dbIII · · Score: 2

      There was that guy in Somalia a few years back who left in a hurry before US troops turned up leaving a book open that was reported in the press as solid proof that he was a communist. In a later report it turned out that the author of the book was Ben Franklin.

    101. Re:Not the only state with this law by corisco · · Score: 0

      I regret to inform you that you are no longer free.

    102. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is that it's already illegal to be in posession of drugs. This just gives them the abilitiy to stack another charge. What I don't understand is how they plan to prove intent if they didn't find any drugs. I suspect that this may have been used as a harrassment tactic and he'll never actually be prosecuted.

    103. Re:Not the only state with this law by chill · · Score: 1

      Spoken by someone who as never seen The Matrix.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    104. Re:Not the only state with this law by CubicleZombie · · Score: 1

      If the compartment was lockable, wouldn't it count as a "gun safe"?

      It would be okay if you can't reach it and/or you don't have the key.

      --
      :wq
    105. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to justify infringing upon people's freedoms for safety?

    106. Re:Not the only state with this law by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      You're not allowed to have the key to your own gun safe?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    107. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Middle of Nowhere it is illegal for; a black person to ride a horse through to shout in public places.

      It's been said that the United States has more laws on the books than the entire rest of the world combined. They won't remove any old outdated laws on the books so if the cops want to hassle you for something they ALWAYS can find an excuse. In some states it is still illegal to drive a car through town without it being preceded by a man waving a lantern so as not to traumatize the horses.

    108. Re:Not the only state with this law by coinreturn · · Score: 2

      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.

      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.

    109. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS like what you described is actually one of the main reasons I got a permit to carry. I didn't really want to carry a firearm, I just wanted to avoid triggering some arcane/esoteric law which a prosecutor with political ambitions could use to railroad me into a mandatory minimum sentence.

    110. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP stated: "slung" with the butt of the rifle tied to your shoulder and wearing an oversized trenchcoat.

    111. Re:Not the only state with this law by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      > 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?

      Because they saw the compartment full of cocaine (or whatever) before they emptied it and arrested him?

      What percentage of police do you suppose are criminals?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    112. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course not. Only police have the gun safe keys. That's why people call the police whenever there's a break-in. The cops swing by several minutes after the disturbance and take the guns from the gun safe as evidence from the murder scene.

    113. Re:Not the only state with this law by crakbone · · Score: 1

      The theft occurred your just arguing over the amount of time. Blankets laws are ridicules and take up way too much of the courts time.

    114. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How cute. You really seem to believe that the endless expansion of government is founded on good intentions, rather than pure greed.

    115. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in the "Free State" (MD), even unloaded and with ammo separate and unreachable, you still can only be transporting directly to or from a shooting range. It really does depend on the state. And you're not getting a concealed carry permit, so don't even worry about that.

    116. Re:Not the only state with this law by CubicleZombie · · Score: 1

      The rule in my state is, if there's any way you can put your hand on the gun, it either has to be clearly visible or you need a concealed carry license. So if it's in a safe, you can touch the safe, and you have the key, it's a concealed weapon. In theory, if you locked the key in the trunk then the weapon is no longer accessible. But I wouldn't try it.

      The gray area is a pickup truck or SUV where there isn't a separate trunk and the only way to transport a gun is inside the passenger compartment. Then put it as far out of reach as possible and hope for the best. That's the main reason I obtained a concealed carry permit - just as a CYA while driving to the range.

      --
      :wq
    117. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Urban legends are insightful? Welcome to Slashdot!

    118. Re:Not the only state with this law by crakbone · · Score: 1

      Merriam Webster does not seem to have a problem with it. hubcap noun \hb-kap\ : a removable plastic or metal cover on the center of a car or truck wheel

    119. Re:Not the only state with this law by jcochran · · Score: 4

      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.

    120. Re:Not the only state with this law by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      It would not. The compartment is not being used for drugs. That seems to be what everyone is glazing over.

      TFA quoted, but did not link to, an article by WKYC which mentions that the police detected a strong odor of marijuana, which led them to the closer investigation revealing the secret compartment. Still, this seems like a case worthy of appeal. I am suspicious of laws based on intent, as intent is hard to prove.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    121. Re:Not the only state with this law by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      As opposed to what? Cooked marijuana?

      As opposed to smoked marijuana.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    122. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google "asset forfeiture", "civil forfeiture", "cash seizure" and the like. Tennessee and Florida have been doing this for a while now. They take large sums of cash in exchange for not initiating bogus prosecutions. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91555835

    123. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An upstanding white-nosed congressman

      FTFY.

    124. Re:Not the only state with this law by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      a) Have actually proven that this is not some 'cook something up to to get our ultra conservative readers their daily dose of outrage over their morning coffee' type story made up by a right wing rag.

      I can't speak to the specific case, but if you think civil forfeiture is a figment of the right-wing imagination, you're dangerously ignorant about how the government operates.

      It's been going on for decades, under both Democratic and Republican leadership. Basically, the state or federal government uses an obscure legal doctrine under which it accuses your property of a crime. Your property doesn't have the same due process and presumption of innocence rights you do, so it usually lose the case. You have to sue the government to get it back. You can guess how well that usually goes.

      https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-police

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/civil-asset-forfeiture

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/02/take_the_money_and_run.html

      http://fear.org/victimindex.html

      http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman

      http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/08/property-civil-forfeiture.html

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    125. Re:Not the only state with this law by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      In Phoenix there is an ordinance against driving around a circular street more than three times in a two-hour period. It was passed less than twenty years ago to curb teenage "cruising" at two specific shopping malls. A hundred years from now, will anyone remember the reason for this ordinance?

    126. Re:Not the only state with this law by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      No, they would just plant real drugs in your hidden compartment so they could go for more lucrative charges.

    127. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to read more about this but can't find anything on google - is there something else I can search by or would you have a link?

    128. Re:Not the only state with this law by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      And I have seen these sort of things for sale in the uk mainly for sales guys to lock their laptops/valuables away. We had an instance where a load (well over a thousand) of our mangers went to a conference to hear the CEO speak. When they all came out they found that some one had smashed the widows on a load of company cars and made off with peoples laptops.

    129. Re:Not the only state with this law by gagol · · Score: 1

      Bingo my friend.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    130. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *tips fedora*

    131. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      That wouldn't work for me, I'm too tall.

      You just need a bigger gun...

    132. Re:Not the only state with this law by mrex · · Score: 1

      Well the article proves having 0% of a controlled substance is all that's required to be arrested.

      I'm sure there were trace quantities of controlled substances on the money in his wallet, or something.

    133. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine. To be absolutely safe, make it a dildo instead. I'm pretty sure those don't have to be registered or require a permit.

    134. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also leads to indefinate pretensing during an investigation......... only if you know they are doing it can you royally waste their time and money.

    135. Re:Not the only state with this law by sudon't · · Score: 1

      It's happened to more than one innocent person.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    136. Re:Not the only state with this law by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      No, the article proves that having a car that reeks of marijuana and has a secret compartment is enough to get you arrested.

      "I smelled marijuana" is such a common cop lie that one can safely discount it as testimony -- especially since there wasn't any found. How did the car end up smelling of cannabis if there wasn't any there?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    137. Re:Not the only state with this law by gorehog · · Score: 1

      The article states that the man in question was arrested with an empty compartment. The manager in this case could be arrested after making the drop at the bank, or if he leaves the job and simply leaves the secret compartment installed in his car.

    138. Re:Not the only state with this law by gorehog · · Score: 1

      This shouldn't be enough to authorize a search. Someone nearby could be growing weed.

    139. Re:Not the only state with this law by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      How do you have such a persecution complex?

    140. Re:Not the only state with this law by SleazyRidr · · Score: 0

      I just read a story on /. about a guy who was arrested for having a secret compartment in his car, even though he had no intention of using it for drugs. I think it was in Ohio. You should check it out: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/11/26/0014229/driver-arrested-in-ohio-for-secret-car-compartment-full-of-nothing

    141. Re:Not the only state with this law by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      I recall a group of people attempting to exploit the dumb laws, and they encountered a problem: Some of the listed laws were either incorrect, outdated, or ended up causing a hazard when they tried breaking them. In any case, they didn't receive their handgun and bullets when they left prison.

      Also, those laws are uncited, requiring you to search for something that might not even exist.

      Here's an example:

      It is illegal to turn right on a red light at any time. (Repealed 2003 â" However, the law remains in effect in the city of Montreal)

      This law is a safety regulation, and it can easily be interpreted as a law where you can't travel into a red light signal (e.g. absolute stop).

      Also, they should mention it's a Quebec law rather than being for all of Canada.

    142. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not just a United States issue. British customs have been seizing money as well. You can look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zYaMaLr08U for an example.

    143. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This resulted in jokes about carrying it on the top of your head.

      Only to be arrested by short cops.

    144. Re:Not the only state with this law by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      This.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    145. Re:Not the only state with this law by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      And I have seen these sort of things for sale in the uk mainly for sales guys to lock their laptops/valuables away. We had an instance where a load (well over a thousand) of our mangers went to a conference to hear the CEO speak. When they all came out they found that some one had smashed the widows on a load of company cars and made off with peoples laptops.

      Well yes. Happens here at the convention center all the time. It's almost like it's a side-business for professional seminars.

      And note, this is smash-and-grab, not steal-car-take-to-safe-location-strip-to-frame. It's exactly a situation where a hidey hole would be most beneficial, with an entirely legal purpose.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    146. Re:Not the only state with this law by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Even though you're not carrying it?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    147. Re:Not the only state with this law by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Because an officer saying "it smelled like weed!" with no other evidence could never be abused...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    148. Re:Not the only state with this law by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > What percentage of police do you suppose are criminals?

      Let's not fool ourselves. About the same percentage as the population. Plus a smaller percentage who are attracted to the power, because of what they can do with that power. So on the average, probably a higher percentage than the proles.

      We need to understand. Cops are just people. Government officials are just people. Congresspeople are just people. They have no better moral compass than the population, and on average may have worse, because the attraction of naked power tends to filter out the wheat and keep the chaff. (And this goes for both parties, if you live in the US.) Please remember that the next time you vote to have a government official manage some new part of your life.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    149. Re: Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's just throw you in jail then because you might bomb a library!

    150. Re:Not the only state with this law by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      +1 Sad But Plausible

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    151. Re:Not the only state with this law by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      Not true. In many states having the gun accessible at all is illegal. You can legally transport them if the guns and ammo are in separate locked compartments or container, per Federal law, but just locking up the ammo doesn't fly in all states.

    152. Re:Not the only state with this law by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      And the rear compartment is neither a trunk nor a boot, the front compartment neither a hood nor a bonnet. What do you call them? Do you keep gloves in the passenger-side storage compartment?

    153. Re:Not the only state with this law by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I think someone else mentioned that most cash will test positive for cocaine. I travel cross-country about once a year on vacation, so I try to keep track of what cops are looking for, in order to "keep my head down" and get to my destination without drama. I've read that it doesn't matter if nobody in your family has ever *seen* a joint, cops can still find "marijuana debris" in the carpet after ripping out your seats and panels. (Apparently any kind of straw or dried grass-like material counts.) I tell ya, it gives you real confidence in the justice system.

      So at a stop, my attitude is "Officer, with all due respect, We both know you don't have probable cause. I am not going to give you permission to search my car, under any circumstances whatsoever. I'm on vacation, so we can stand here until your shift ends if you insist. So.... how 'bout them niners, huh?"

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    154. Re:Not the only state with this law by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

      But wait, there's more!

      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.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    155. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, we have another law that lets women go topless on hot days.

      Good luck finding those on the internet

      I'm pretty sure you can find those on the internet.

    156. Re:Not the only state with this law by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    157. Re:Not the only state with this law by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I could probably hide my uncle's .30-30 under my full length trench coat but my M91/30 wouldn't stand a chance.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    158. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will test the dog shit, find ketamine, and arrest you for the shit-eating grin.

    159. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean the 33 year old stripper whose life savings was confiscated while it was in transport to purchase a nightclub?
      Daily Mail

      Bitcoin stripper not effected!

    160. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what about the bible?

    161. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to live in the middle of nowhere

    162. Re:Not the only state with this law by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      ..a member of the locksport community.

      "The locksport community" might be the funniest thing I've heard yet today.

      I know you're serious, but it doesn't make it any less funny.

    163. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Columbus, Ohio women can go topless any day of the year.

    164. Re:Not the only state with this law by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see this line - I read the article and even went back to the source linked from there, no mention of pot, marijuana, weed, or anything else. Besides, in most places it's not illegal to have done it, but to be in possession of it (or paraphernalia, which still doesn't usually mean much without the actual drug).

    165. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, more thinking about the old men who rape young boys type. Both exist you know?

      And, ummm, yeah, Bank America just ran a TV commercial about how they want to help me keep my money, fucking moron.

    166. Re:Not the only state with this law by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      I got questioned by a curious cop who didn't like the looks of us. We had tools in the back, because my buddy works for a gym fixing hot-tubs and equipment. The cop didn't believe us that the tools were for his job. He also didn't believe us that we were parked on the side of the road to go jogging. We were wearing jeans and sweatshirts. Eventually he couldn't find anything specifically wrong with the situation and let us go. Being two white kids from an upscale neighborhood had something to do with that.

      We were lucky that he didn't notice that we had taken down the 'OVER TWO TONS GROSS WEIGHT FORBIDDEN' sign and put it face down in the back of the car. We took it to hang it over the girl's dorm entrance.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    167. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not like marriage licenses at all. Reciprocity is confusing, inconsistent and far, FAR from universal. None of the states that border mine have reciprocity, for example.

    168. Re:Not the only state with this law by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      Eh, along with Zordak's comment that they likely wouldn't land in prison, the homeless aren't a great working population. The other side of private prisons is cheap labor, and you need healthy, strong, young people to do your labor. Too bad there isn't any kind of bias against young, healthy, strong people in this country that lands them in prison more often...

    169. Re: Not the only state with this law by c-A-d · · Score: 1

      This just cements my belief that the Canadian criminal system - as imperfect as it is - is better than the American one. Municipalities cannot enact any criminal ordinances and provinces are strictly limited in criminal law. Criminal Law is seen as being Federal Jurisdiction.

      That being said, in the US, I would rather see the States in charge of all criminal laws and the municipalities not permitted any criminal law and the federal government severely restricted (or better yet, if they just stuck to their enumerated powers as outlined in the US Constitution).

      --
      some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
    170. Re:Not the only state with this law by c-A-d · · Score: 1

      Canada Border Services Agency can do the same thing.

      I think it's fucking disgusting that this can happen. They don't have to charge you with a crime. They just declare the money as "bad" and make you prove that the money was earned legitimately.

      Many provinces also have proceeds of crime legislation. The Government of Ontario has abused their implementation of the law to try to take someone's house (I don't know if they have been successful) after they were convicted of improper storage of a firearm (and I'm not getting into the mess that legislation is. there is no definition of proper storage) because they chose to fight the charge instead of plead guilty like a good little prole.

      --
      some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
    171. Re:Not the only state with this law by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      What about the ones guilty of melanization with malice aforethought or aggravated negritude? We can still lock them up, right?

    172. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intention is determined in court. The police just arrest everyone with a secret compartment and let the courts sort out who is guilty. It isn't the job of the police to determine guilt or innocence. It is their job to arrest people they think might be guilty.

      Or something. I don't know anything about society anymore.

    173. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto in New York state.

      -- green led

    174. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Seems like that's exactly what he was doing too)

    175. Re:Not the only state with this law by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      Most of New York does, but be extra careful when you get to New York City. They have their own level of stupid out there. Even having CCP from another county within NY is not enough. You have to get it from NYC, and good luck with that.

      -- green led

    176. Re:Not the only state with this law by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      Smoked marijuana and fresh marijuana smell completely different. Hell, even cured and uncured smells different.

      And yes, I have been searched several times under the pretense that they "smelled pot" coming from my car, even though I haven't smoked pot in 4-5 years now.

    177. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess where you live black people do not go to the movie theater for fear of getting arrested.

    178. Re:Not the only state with this law by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      Right. SInce when has the smell of something been illegal? And how the fuck would I know what marijuana smells, it's illegal and I haven't had any contact with it whatsoever. Yeah the car I bought had a funny smell, but should I know what some forbidden substance smells like?

      I bet the driver had pockets also. Hidden compartments for transferring crack right there!

      Every month the Honolulu Police Department would raid the Ko'olau Mountains looking for pakalolo farms and burn the crops at the Kahuku station (which is separated from Kahuku High School by a chain link fence) during school hours. We *ALL* know what marijuana smells like.

    179. Re:Not the only state with this law by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Intention is determined in court. The police just arrest everyone with a secret compartment and let the courts sort out who is guilty. It isn't the job of the police to determine guilt or innocence. It is their job to arrest people they think might be guilty.

      Or something. I don't know anything about society anymore.

      Yeah. I think many would argue that most of the damage (physical and otherwise) resulting from a false accusation occurs in the arrest process.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    180. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New York has no reciprocity whatsoever. The entire state has some of the most insane laws in the nation. NYC's laws are simply criminal.

    181. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check youtube once in your life you idiotic luddite.

      There's a woman who gets tasered for trying to uphold her constitutional rights.

    182. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel kinda sorry for you, and yet at the same time really don't, as those laws are all self inflicted.

      That's cos you're an idiotic wanker who thinks everything that happens to people is their own fault. Grow the fuck up and get out of the basement.

    183. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to go slashmods. This post gets made every freakin day here and it gets modded "insightful" instead of the "redundant" or "overrated" it deserves.
      It isn't insightful to talk about how people are easily manipulated because they aren't paying attention, its obvious.

    184. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      That one is actually quite reasonable. You really don't want to go 50 mph down a dark country road full of cows do you?

    185. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you high right now? I'm trying to figure out what your point is. I feel like the weed part adds an unnecessary distraction, so I've replaced a few words. It didn't really help much...

      Keep in mind that when society gets too far out of control your freedoms will totally vanish. Issues are not always as simple as they appear to be. I wonder how many people in California who own a box full of cash have had issues with raids by thieves on their properties and homes. How much police response has been required over complaints of people scurrying about trying to steal some cash? Have there been any murders?

      Are our freedoms going to vanish when crime gets out of control and laws are passed making it illegal to keep cash at home? Is that what you're getting at?

    186. Re:Not the only state with this law by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Well, like I said, they're unenforced. When I lived there, there were two black families in the county, who came and went and socialized , just like everyone. They even knew about the statute and recognized it as part of the colorful history of the place. Still at one time, someone was concerned enough to make a law for the county. Kind of strange, when you consider this is not in the South.If people hate something, it is because they fear it.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    187. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't get there from here.

    188. Re:Not the only state with this law by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Tell me more about the topless women part. Do they hang out laundry topless or do they hang out in topless laundromats or both? I mean you ARE downplaying the occurrences to keep from being mobbed by Nerds, yes?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    189. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And one of my favorite Arizona laws: You may not have more than two dildos in a house.

      Does this also make college fraternities illegal?

    190. Re: Not the only state with this law by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      This just cements my belief that the Canadian criminal system - as imperfect as it is - is better than the American one. Municipalities cannot enact any criminal ordinances and provinces are strictly limited in criminal law. Criminal Law is seen as being Federal Jurisdiction.

      At least in the case of the concealed carry thing where the police view an open carry holster as 'concealment', I feel the need to point out that what the police are doing isn't legal. What happened is that the state overrode the city, telling them that yes, due to the state constitution and state law, open carry is legal. So the police of a very anti-gun city within that state went 'creative' with their interpretation of 'concealed'. It's not a matter of the law, it's how the local authorities are interpreting said law. Like I said, it's routinely slapped down when it gets to court.

      It's a bit like people who say the second is about authorizing the national guard to have weapons. (It's about regulating* the militia AND preserving the right of the people to arms).

      *Which in this context means like a 'regulated watch' or regulated power supply - IE it's designed to stay within specifications, IE work.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    191. Re: Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some ones forgetting Texas.

    192. Re:Not the only state with this law by kermidge · · Score: 1

      ;-)

    193. Re: Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who does employment background checks, a private employer can not take into account arrest records. Only conviction records. Government employers such as police and jobs requiring security clearances can consider arrest records.

    194. Re: Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carrying in your hand can be considered brandishing. Also sounds like Mississippi.

    195. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Simple: Does the jury believe the prosectuor when said prosecutor presents it, and uses lines of questioning in which the defendant can't give a coherent response.

      A law like this is *really* meant to hang a drug dealer out to dry when the search which finds the drugs is likely to be tossed in court. (i.e. can't convict on the possession charge, but can still get a nail in with the secret compartment containing it.)

      A cop who decided to go for it when there were no drugs in there was either stupid, trying to get the law tossed, or trying to get the charge dismissed but uphold the basic law theory, decided to play "screw with me I'll screw with you" with a driver who doesn't know how to handle a stop, or needed justification for the stop (akin to "your taillight is broke, that's why a stopped you."

    196. Re:Not the only state with this law by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      You really don't want to go 50 mph down a dark country road full of cows do you?

      Can I make the decision how fast I drive? Are the choices either wait 10 minutes, or drive 50mph? What about if I drive 25 and use my high beams, is that going to be ok for you? Because what I really don't want to do is park my car, shoot off a rocket, and sit there for 10 minutes.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    197. Re: Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is proving "intent". When installing the compartment was the intent to use it for drugs? Couldn't it just as easily be used to protect legal items from being stolen?

      I am getting sick of seeing being prosected for thought crimes. I really liked growing up in the USA. Too bad that place is gone.

    198. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not saying you're a nigger, but when are you going to stop raping white women and go back to Africa?

    199. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to love some of these laws though! I was once ticketed by a very upset police officer for riding a donkey on a city street. I did some research and discovered a local 1910 law that gave me the right-of-way over motor vehicles. I took it to court, and much to the chagrin of the ticketing officer, my case was dismissed!!! I continued to ride my ass in the street and was never messed with again.

    200. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I feel about that the way I feel about draconian traffic/parking regulations: good. I drive, but I don't think driving should be cheap or easy. And while I can't do anything about tough guys strutting around with their guns hanging out, at least they get some friction... wait...

    201. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe women can be topless on the days they are not allowed to hang laundry out to dry. Goodness know we wouldn't want them walking around with gravy stains on their blouses :)

    202. Re:Not the only state with this law by gagol · · Score: 1

      I was aiming for funny, how the heck is this trolling?

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    203. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really not that much different from marriage licenses.

      Except for those gay gun licenses, they aren't recognized everywhere yet.

    204. Re:Not the only state with this law by almechist · · Score: 1

      And one of my favorite Arizona laws: You may not have more than two dildos in a house.

      Wow, that's pretty weird. I mean, think a minute about what the rationale behind that one must have been. One dildo is perfectly OK to have and use, but merely possessing two of them makes you a pervert and a felon! Sure, that's perfectly logical. Who the heck came up with that idea, I wonder?

      And then of course there's the obvious question, what happens if it's a two-headed dildo? Does that count as one or two?

    205. Re:Not the only state with this law by almechist · · Score: 1

      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.

      Well, I found an article that says "Troopers noticed an overwhelming smell of raw marijuana which gave them probable cause to search the car", so it must be true, right? Trouble is, cops know full well they can search any car they want to just by claiming to smell some pot. The "I smelled marijuana" claim has been so abused over the years by law enforcement it's become a cliche. Just because a cop says he noticed an odor, doesn't mean there was one. Doesn't mean there wasn't one, either, there may well have been, it's just that on this particular issue cops have very little credibility.

    206. Re:Not the only state with this law by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Actual quote (translated form the German): "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

      For "opium", read "analgesic". Given that, it seems entirely appropriate to store one in your hidden compartment. "Officer, it helps me deal with the fact that you, and the stupider laws that you enforce, exist."

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    207. Re:Not the only state with this law by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Yeah, get a NRSV like a proper humanist.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    208. Re:Not the only state with this law by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Of course, I'm not sure how in the hell you prove intent without said drugs being in there.

      Something that's missing from the summary is that the officers noticed a strong smell of raw cannabis, which is why they searched the car. (I'm aware that this is a known tactic used by certain corrupt police officers, but let's leave that aside for one moment; if that's dubious it will come out in court.)

      TFA also mentions that previous drug convictions are enough. I can see the reasoning here; it's analogous to how a conviction for a violent crime means you will never get to legally own a gun ever again in most jurisdictions.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    209. Re:Not the only state with this law by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Everyone who isn't completely stupid believes that this is a reasonable thing. The only question is where you draw the line.

      Yes, even you. Putting people in prison infringes on their right of free association.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    210. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You did read that the law is only about non-factory modifications, right?

    211. Re:Not the only state with this law by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      SInce when has the smell of something been illegal?

      It hasn't. It has, however, been probable cause for some time now.

      The amount of evidence required to arrest you is considerably less than the amount of evidence required to convict you. But, of course, you knew that.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    212. Re:Not the only state with this law by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      It's enough to arrest you. Getting a conviction is something different, and the investigation has only just started.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    213. Re: Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love the sarcasm, lmfao! If not get real and stop believing everything fox news tells you.

    214. Re: Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only montreal island, not all of quebec. Similar to manhattan. Because montreal has so many similarities to manhattan and all.

    215. Re:Not the only state with this law by messymerry · · Score: 1

      "Land of the free home of the brave has become land of decree and home of the slave." This isn''t mine. It belongs to a poster named Joe at thetruthaboutguns.com. So, thanks Joe

      --
      Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
    216. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      If Americans weren't so squeamish about killing terrorists and other outlaws who commit violent crimes, we wouldn't have to give up our freedoms and we could be safe from their predations. This is not a new idea either. In the days of the Roman Empire it was common practice to make examples of those who rebelled against the rule of Rome and killed Roman citizens. They would raise entire cities to the ground and put every last person, including women and children, to the sword as a warning to all who would dare challenge the rule and power of Rome. By all accounts it was an effective deterrent too because areas pacified thus would often remain so for generations afterwards and eventually become Romanized themselves as sympathetic peoples survived to reproduce and rebellious ones did not.

    217. Re:Not the only state with this law by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If Americans weren't so squeamish about killing terrorists and other outlaws who commit violent crimes, we wouldn't have to give up our freedoms and we could be safe from their predations.

      We don't have to give up our freedoms either way. Whether the security is real or fake is irrelevant; I don't think the land of the free and the home of the brave should be sacrificing its freedom for security, real or imagined.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    218. Re: Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the law again. It is illegal in Arizona to have MORE THAN TWO dildos in a house. So, two dildos are OK, three would be illegal. A three-headed dildo would be legal, but difficult to use.

    219. Re: Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are far from free! More like government controlled cattle.

    220. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one...am terrified by shit like this. Way more afraid of the Police than I am of any criminal.

      1. The Police are OUT_OF_CONTROL
      2. Things are going completely Totalitarian and 21st Century Schizoid Man
      3. We're all fucked if we don't do something about Fukushima

      Let's stuff our faces in a Smartphone and let the $ Man continue to rule with Fear, Lies and 1/2 Truth distorted to suit the needs of the Mega Riche Lie/Pighead Machine.

      The Devil is Laughing at you!

    221. Re: Not the only state with this law by almechist · · Score: 1

      Ah, all is clear. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Makes perfect sense now.

    222. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Free is not being arrested for modifying your personal conveyance. Imagine being cited for putting a saddle on a horse. Or putting horse shoes on one. This isn't freedom.

    223. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where was that place I didn't want to go?

    224. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "Land of the greeds and home of the slaves"

    225. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a dumb ass. "bad things", "sacrifice all of your freedoms". Wake up you sheep.

    226. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you said "sacrifice all your freedoms in the land of the free." That wouldn't be freedom now would it.

    227. Re:Not the only state with this law by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's related to the law that says that it is not legal for 6 unrelated women to live in the same house. That law was supposed to target brothels. Brothels are already illegal, so I'm not sure why they feel like they needed to make other things about brothels also illegal. Incidentally, that law is the reason why Arizona State University has frat houses but no sorority houses. The sororities live in dorms with other students.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    228. Re: Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing he's got, he really needs...

    229. Re:Not the only state with this law by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Or The Matrix.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    230. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We had to destroy your freedom in order to save it."

    231. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a Cheshire cat impression.

    232. Re:Not the only state with this law by msim · · Score: 1
      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    233. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      "Reeking" of marijuana is not a crime. Possession of marijuana is. They found no drugs. Where the hell is America?

    234. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you find the actual law via the Arizona .gov website on the 2 dildoes?

      Thanks.

    235. Re:Not the only state with this law by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering how it differs from carrying an empty suitcase. After all the only reason you would do that is because you're going to pick up a load of contraband, right??!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    236. Re:Not the only state with this law by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Thoughtcrime at its finest.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    237. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was that guy in Somalia a few years back ...

      I heard that too! Man, the interwebs is a cool place.

    238. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In between drug runs I would chose to keep a ziploc bag of dog shit in the secret compartment.

      That only works if the shit is in liquid form (except for the corn kernels and peanut bits) and is set to fly out in a massive spray if the compartment is opened without pressing the secret switch.

      When you are asked what is in there, tell them you "had diarrhea and had to put your shit in there" but also that they need to "be careful because my diarrhea has been spraying out something bad".

      GoPro stream live to teh interwebs so we can see the subsequent beat-down and haul-off.

    239. Re:Not the only state with this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you black and look like you have too much money or are driving too nice a car for someone of 'your kind'?

      FIFY. One of our college friends would regularly get pulled over for a DWB while driving to our house in his (legally owned) BMW.

    240. Re:Not the only state with this law by chiefmojorising · · Score: 1

      So, *exactly* like (gay) marriage, then?

  2. How did they prove intent? by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or is this another one of those BS laws where they bypass due process by stating in the law that "such and such" conditions are sufficient to establish it?

    1. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the more reason NOT to update your FB with incriminating photos.

    2. Re:How did they prove intent? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Beyond which, if the cops found it, how can it be a "secret" compartment?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:How did they prove intent? by weilawei · · 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.

    4. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's guilty until proven innocent in the United States of Ass-backwards

    5. Re:How did they prove intent? by smhsmh · · Score: 2

      They haven't proven intent. (And I hope they cannot.) The driver has only been arrested and charged, not convicted.

    6. Re: How did they prove intent? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      this was my thought also, if there are visible wires running to it then it's not a secret compartment, merely a compartment.

    7. Re:How did they prove intent? by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      It's not illegal if they don't know about it... isn't that what the government has always said?

    8. Re:How did they prove intent? by Dahamma · · Score: 4, 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

    9. Re:How did they prove intent? by asmkm22 · · Score: 4, 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.

    10. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a matter of time. Guilty until proven lawyer.

    11. Re:How did they prove intent? by weilawei · · Score: 5, Informative

      And in states like MA, this sort of "overwhelming smell of marijuana" (which cannot later be verified if it was a lie), is NOT probable cause, for the exact reason that police often lie. I have personally had my ripped apart for a police officer claiming I had marijauana (which I did not). I was let go after an illegal search and detention of myself and my passenger, and given a ticket for failing to use my turn signal (while I was going straight, not changing lanes). The cost of a lawyer was simply too high (and I did consult multiple lawyers) to purpose prosection.

    12. Re:How did they prove intent? by weilawei · · Score: 1

      I a word. "had my car ripped apart".

    13. Re:How did they prove intent? by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, 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.

    14. Re: How did they prove intent? by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cops are specially trained, things they see can be secret, but visible without a warrant. I site prior rulings, notjcommon sense. Plain site for a cop is different than for a citizen according to the courts.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    15. Re: How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cops are specially trained, things they see can be secret, but visible without a warrant. I site prior rulings, notjcommon sense. Plain site for a cop is different than for a citizen according to the courts.

      You can't even spell correctly and you expect anyone here to listen to your arguments ?

      That's comical.

    16. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how people pick and choose their "facts" on these "issues".

      I'd say it's an issue even if he had drugs, since they have no business arresting people for such things. The drug war is disgusting.

      With that said, allowing cops to pull people over merely because they claimed they smelled something is just silly, as the other guy said.

    17. Re:How did they prove intent? by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thanks for clearing that up. We were all desperately hoping the missing word wasn't "ass"...

    18. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i had assumed you meant "ass", you had your ass ripped apart in the search for marajuana.
      some people put it in there, it goes directly into the bloodstream. difficult to inhale, though

    19. Re:How did they prove intent? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but since they found it, it became illegal. It's not really a secret compartment if they don't find it. I mean if no cops complain about the secret compartment they don't find, then they must be cool with it.

    20. Re:How did they prove intent? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      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 something bad with the drugs merely by having them. They don't need to prove you were going to use or sell the drugs because simply possessing the drugs is a crime.

      This law against "secret compartments" is no different. It assume you will use them to hide drugs by merely having it. They don't need to prove you were going to use the secret compartment for drugs because simply possessing the secret compartment is a crime.

    21. Re:How did they prove intent? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      uhm, THAT would be for new mexico...

      (a week or two ago, NM had a bunch of 'invasions' on innocent citizens by cops).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    22. Re:How did they prove intent? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      ... 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.

      Aha! The perfect use: use the car as a bait vehicle. That way, you can nab the person for drug trafficking as well as theft of the automobile.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    23. Re:How did they prove intent? by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Legal fee's are generally taken care of if you win, from what I understand. Of course, it's highly unlikely that this guy actually has a clean drug record, or that they didn't simply find bits of pot in the compartment, in which case a plea bargain would be the smart choice for him.

      That law isn't nearly as whacked out as people are making sound like. I like to rise up against the man as much as the next guy, but when topics like this are based on false or misleading information, it does no one any good.

    24. Re: How did they prove intent? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      not an argument, a statement of united states law WRT to search without a warrant.

      whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to me, as is whether or not I think it is correct or not. Living in a common law society means that it is a settled matter, even if common sense interpretation of the law is relevant or not. Something a police officer obviously finds without specifically looking for can still count as concealed on the basis that their special training helps them find hidden things. this is settled case law on concealed weapons long ago, if you want to think I'm an idiot and test this otherwise that's fine by me (I am an idiot, but it's still true)...

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    25. Re:How did they prove intent? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 4, 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.

    26. Re:How did they prove intent? by HangingChad · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    27. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Yeah, speaking of intent, ain't it a damn shame what people have to go through these days just to get their medicine home from their dealer or dispensary?

      Any fucking day people. Whenever you feel like getting off your goddamn stereotypes and vote for common sense to get rid of the bloodshed surrounding a fucking plant. Just legalize it already so we can be done with 80% of these bullshit petty arrests that ruin millions of lives for victimless crimes.

      Any fucking day people. How many more have to die due to violence? Any fucking day...

    28. Re:How did they prove intent? by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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 something bad with the drugs merely by having them.

      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.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    29. Re:How did they prove intent? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      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.

      You usually prove intent the same way you prove anything else: by looking at evidence. If they go through his cell phone and find text messages that are about drug deals, or bring in witnesses that describe drugs that the guy sold them, then a jury is likely to believe that he intended to use the hidden compartment for transporting drugs.

    30. Re:How did they prove intent? by Baloroth · · Score: 4, 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).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    31. Re: How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally speaking, the original AC reply can be best interpreted as "citation needed". Your rebuttal lacked citations and therefore was null.

    32. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no way in Hell to get off an arrest record whatsoever. Once the fingerprints and mug shots are in the system (NCIC database and others), it is permanent.

      To boot, most employers past McDonalds background check on -arrest-, not conviction records ("you can buy an acquittal, but if the police officer decides to take the time to cuff and stuff, then you are guilty, period.")

      Sad fact of life, but welcome to America.

    33. Re:How did they prove intent? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Has a cop every not smelled marijuana when he wanted to search a car?

    34. Re:How did they prove intent? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      $2500-5500 per pound

      Oh, geez, I haven't been keeping up. Last time I was around good weed was $120 a key - about $800 today.

      From what I've been reading over the years, both law and cases, intent is a "gimme" by mere possession of whatever amount is designated. Place I used to live, three joints was a felony, a year per in state prison, and I think a quarter-oz. was considered intent - another felony. For a while there, I was easy going through an ounce or two per week between what I smoked, shared, and gave away.

      Ah, well, far away and forty-plus years ago. All I know, this drug war crap is crazy. Nice racket with the seizures, tho. That deal with the cash is screwy. Had an uncle, paid cash for everything, including cars, his house, and even when he bought the place where he worked. Guess he'd have trouble doing that these days.

    35. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be thankful it wasn't in New Mexico. Down there they rip soemthing else apart searching for contraband!

      (_O_)

    36. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... if they do find traces of drugs ...

      You haven't noticed: These police are stealing 2 cars every day because they smelled pot. That's an amazing number of people who use drugs while driving. Even in the movies (where good and bad behaviour is exaggerated), that incident rate smells fishy.

    37. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the only thing that would go into the "secret compartment" after they stole my car under false pretenses is the DA that pushed to take my car, and the asshole cop that kept it. Both of them blended into a little airtight bottle then chummed into the ocean after a pleasant trip to the coast.

    38. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming they are telling the truth

      Try this: Assume they were lying.

      Either way isn't (or shouldn't be) evidence.

      AC

    39. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They always smell "an overwhelming pungent aroma of burnt/raw marijuana" right before they search your vehicle. I wonder if cops just instinctively smell marijuana every time they see a car they want to search a la Pavolv's Dog. In all honesty, I hope this man is either actually guilty or fights to the end to overturn this law. In case he's a drug trafficker, I hope he rots in jail. But if he's innocent, I hope he gets this law overturned. This "for profit policing" is completely retarded. If police work was really about enforcing the laws, they would have told him to be on his way since they found nothing, and then contacted the state DEA office with his information to find the real stash. This wasn't about stopping drug trafficking, it was about stealing this man's car for departmental funds at the local PD.

    40. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in films do people scream Geronimo, reality is not what you see on your tele. If you knoew that already, your sig vastly lack elegance or originality, you would look less silly without it.

    41. Re:How did they prove intent? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      My point is that you can't prove someone's state of mind. Maybe someone sent a text message to their boss that they were going to transport drugs. Maybe that someone only told his boss that because he needed to say that in order not to be killed. Obviously lawyers will try to persuade a jury, and a jury will just decide based on who they think is telling the truth. This doesn't prove anything. This is just the justice system that we have. It doesn't require proof to convict. It requires a consensus of 12 people.

      My other point was that you don't even need to prove intent (which is impossible or really hard). You can just prove they had a compartment. That is sufficient, in the way that simply proving someone had drugs is sufficient. You don't need to prove he was going to use or sell them. The law can (and frequently is) crafted in such a way to make a simple thing (like possession of X amount) illegal, because it is assumed to imply a more complicated thing (like intent to sell), and it doesn't matter if you didn't plan to sell, because you had the amount that was decided to be illegal.

    42. Re:How did they prove intent? by Pubstar · · Score: 2
      From TFA:

      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.

    43. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case he's a drug trafficker, I hope he rots in jail.

      I hope someone shoots you in the head.

    44. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's absurd. A guy got pulled over and a subhuman piece of shit allegedly smelled a plant and unconstitutionally arrested him.

    45. Re:How did they prove intent? by advocate_one · · Score: 1
      the law as written has "intent of using it to conceal drugs for trafficking.". That's what they have to prove intent of... so even if I had installed a secret compartment in my car, they would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was made with the intent of using it to conceal drugs for trafficking.

      Mine is for concealling high value items when on the road. Damn sight safer than hotel rooms or schlepping it around with me.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    46. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not illegal if they don't know about it... isn't that what the government has always said?

      They also said you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

      But when this guy hid nothing, they still arrested him.

    47. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where each of plant of his crop might produce an ounce of usable product

      You're doing it wrong. Anything less than half a pound per plant and you should be ashamed. The last crop I grew got two kilos from three plants after drying (according to both my own... and the police scale. Although somehow only one kilo made it into evidence, according to the prosecutor.)

    48. Re:How did they prove intent? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      He has also already lost the car, which will be auctioned off, even if the charges are dropped. Unless he sues the city or state and is able to prove to the satisfaction of the court or jury that the vehicle wasn't used to transport drugs.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    49. Re:How did they prove intent? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      "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".

      Probably because what you are calling a "fact", other people would call a "claim made by police without proof".

      It's people like you that make the jury system almost worthless.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    50. Re:How did they prove intent? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I could say the same thing about YOU.

      Where in my brief and (I thought) easily comprehensible post did I say that anything other than that it was a fact that the quote I mentioned was in the original article, and no one else mentioned it? Maybe my statement that it "will be interesting if they do find traces of drugs in the compartment" would have made that more obvious, but I guess I assumed too much based on your open mouth breather reply...

    51. Re:How did they prove intent? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Well saying that you spent $200k of police resources (ie taxpayers money) to bust a guy who made $50k of drugs wouldnt go down so well.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    52. Re:How did they prove intent? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      From your original comment:

      I love how people pick and choose their "facts" on these "issues".
      The police pulled a guy over, smelled pot,

      You repeated the troopers' claim without qualification, immediately after calling the description of those claims, "facts".

      I understand that you are trying to back away from your comment now, but the implication was clear.

      And the attitude you displayed is why illegal searches and claims of "resisting arrest" go unchallenged in courts. People like you falsely equate claims made by police and other authority figures as "facts" (even when there is evidence or witnesses disputing those claims). It's incredibly dangerous because it allows abuses of power to go unchallenged. As others have pointed out, "smelled marijuana" is a loophole you can drive a truck through, and is therefore routinely abused by police with the full cooperation of the courts, and the acquiescence of media and jurors.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    53. Re:How did they prove intent? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's a BS law. They may not get a conviction here, for the purposes of arresting this guy, secret compartment=intent because war on drugs.

    54. Re:How did they prove intent? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Unless they could show that HE and not a previous owner placed drugs in the compartment, they still haven't proven intent.

    55. Re:How did they prove intent? by qbast · · Score: 1

      Too bad his car will be long auctioned off by then.

    56. Re:How did they prove intent? by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying I agree with this law, but how do you ever prove intent? How do you prove what somebody was thinking?

      It's just vague non-sense... There are all sorts of scenarios out there where it's obvious someone was about to, just did, or is planning on doing something illegal. This word they use, "intent" is technical enough to fly, and vague enough to be interpreted however the law-enforcement officials wish. In essence, it's a thought crime. Yet another tool in their selective-enforcement arsenal, I guess.

    57. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good defense lawyer would claim that it was trace from money he had been transporting.

    58. Re:How did they prove intent? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      >> Troopers noticed...

      > Assuming they are telling the truth,

      Clearly you're whoring for +5 funny!

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    59. Re:How did they prove intent? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      However, it's still a thought-crime.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    60. Re:How did they prove intent? by hattig · · Score: 1

      Cops don't care.

      To stop the residue of drugs, the drugs should be double bagged, or stored in a container within the secret compartment. That container should be a small cash safe box. When not transporting drugs, put a different small cash safe box in the secret compartment. Bam, valid reason for compartment - transport of cash. Oh, except I guess the cops would just say you're transporting drugs money...

    61. Re:How did they prove intent? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      I'd call it a "statement of fact made by the police without proof".

      The fact that he put "fact" in quotes implied that he does not consider it to actually be factual, merely that it was being presented, by the cops, as such.

      It's people like you that make the English language almost worthless. Please evolve some comprehension skills.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    62. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Land of the Free.... to have their possessions taken by representatives of the state.

      Keep on sucking up your political and economic system, believing it is actually fair or good in any way.

    63. Re:How did they prove intent? by pantaril · · Score: 1

      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.

      It would be absurd even if they found weed in his car, because the law which criminalizes the use, production and distribution of soft drugs is absurd!

    64. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When an independent lab confirms traces of drugs I'll believe it

      This would be why the headline is "driver arrested" rather than "driver indicted" I guess?

      I personally don't consider an officers statements to carry any more weight than the suspects.

      In a Bayesian sense? Then that's just deliberate stupidity on your part. People tend to lie when they have something to hide. You named a few times the police had something to hide, but in a traffic stop the police don't really have a lot to hide going in. The suspects, often, do. Don't pretend like like p(guilty|suspect) = p(guilty). It isn't remotely true. You have to weigh the odd miscarriage of justice against the huge mountain of people being arrested when they actually did do something wrong, not act like every imperfect system is the same as an arbitrary system.

    65. Re:How did they prove intent? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      regardless of grow style? Bullshit. Yeild depends on a lot of factors and yeild per plant depends a lot on the type of grow. Some growers prefer to use more, smaller plants with much shorter veg cycles, that way the entire cycle time is reduced. Lower yeild, in less time.

      Also light can be a limiting factor. It takes some experience and work to get above 1 gram per watt. If all you have is a single 600 watt light, which is common, and you can produce a Kilo, I know several people that would lick your boots to know how.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    66. Re:How did they prove intent? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > From what I've been reading over the years, both law and cases, intent is a "gimme" by mere possession of
      > whatever amount is designated.

      Sure but don't forget, prosecutors love two things: Getting convictions, and avoiding trials. They love themselves some plea deals. I think this has a lot to do with why they so overestimate the amounts. Sure you can maybe fight it in court, but you would need to actually fight and likely need the help of a lawyer.... to reduce the amount at best.

      When a plead deal will get you a few years of probation, most people will take that and give the prosecutor his easy win for the numbers rather than fight it and potentially face years in prison.... years in prison for...not saying uncle because the bully found you with flowers.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    67. Re:How did they prove intent? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      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 they do. If you have to use a drug test to determine that someone is abusing drugs, then obviously it's not impairing them significantly at the moment. This pretense of "Caring for the population" by warehousing people in Prisons seems to fly in the face of the rational for all our drug policies. The real cause of drug abuse is hopelessness and a lack of opportunity. I don't use drugs myself, but I look at the whole progrom of punishing people to protect them as a doomed farce. We don't pummel people who overeat, or people who watch too much TV -- and I've seen more long term drug abusers in the news die fro prescription drugs far more than all the "recreational" that are supposed to be so dangerous.

      Yes there are bad drugs, but the cure in this case is worse than the disease.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    68. Re: How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Generally speaking, the original AC reply can be best interpreted as "I don't have any rational reason to disbelieve what you said, but you misspelled a word or two, so I'm going to make fun of you and claim that it makes your claim incorrect."

      There was nothing even *approaching* a request for citation in that post.

    69. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. Wouldn't the DA's office handle the prosecution? I've never heard of someone needing to hire an attorney to prosecute a criminal offense..?

    70. Re:How did they prove intent? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      People tend to lie when they have something to hide.

      You've described a subset of the reasons people lie. The more general set is that people lie when they stand to gain something from lying. That 'something' that they gain can be trivial if there are no consequences to be paid for the lie. Police lie to satisfy the probable cause requirement so that they can search a car that they want to search or detain a person that they want to detain.

      Our justice system should be based on verifiable facts, not blind trust in arbitrarily selected authorities.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    71. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you get put on lists for background checks just for being arrested?

      How is that even remotely fair?

    72. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I consider the officers word to carry LESS weight than the suspects. But, I've been pulled over and harassed by cops before.

    73. Re: How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy fuck that aliterate mess was hard to read. Let me translate for those who read once in a while:

      Cops are specially trained, things they see can be secret, but visible without a warrant.

      Nope, sorry guys, I have no clue.

      I cite prior rulings, not common sense. Plain sight for a cop is different than for a citizen according to the courts.

      BTW, folks, "aliterate" wasn't a misspelling. An aliterate is someone who can read, but chooses not to and they're easy to spot. Homophone errors (site, sight, cite; your, you're; their, they're, their, etc.), grocer's apostrophes and in fact not being able to use punctuation at all; no use of capitalization, txt spk, not knowing that "loose" and "lose" are two different verbs with two different meanings... the uneducated stand out at a nerd site -- to a nerd. Nerds read.

      Guys, you aliterates should get off of slashdot and read a book or two. Like Twain said, an aliterate has no advantage over an illiterate.

    74. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      It only has to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond the shadow of a doubt". If the guy's a convicted drug trafficker and there's marijuana residue in the compartment, then it's highly probable that the compartment was built with intent to smuggle. Not 100% proved, not without a time machine and a mind reader, but beyond that reasonable doubt.

      Of course, the more expensive lawyer you can afford, the more reasonable he can make any doubts out to be.

    75. Re: How did they prove intent? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Cops are specially trained; things they see can be secret, but visible without a warrant. I cite prior rulings, not common sense. Plain sight for a cop is different than for a citizen according to the courts.

      Yikes.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    76. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When an independent lab confirms traces of drugs I'll believe it

      Don't worry, by the time an independent lab gets hold of it, there'll be traces of drugs to find. (What, you think there was some independent witness on scene to secure swabs while the cops searched?)

    77. Re:How did they prove intent? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      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. ...
      most likely the case

      I've never done drugs in my life, nor have I ever possessed any drugs.

      In college, I had a pretty nice car. The local police stopped me for failing to use my blinker. When I rolled down the window, they said they smelled marijuana and used that as an excuse to tear apart my car without my consent.

      Unfortunately, this experience has lead me to distrust the police, in particular when they say they smell drugs. There's no evidence or reproducible test to corroborate the cop's senses. Sure, they can swab the vehicle, but they'll tear up your seats first (and in my state, at the time at least, there aren't convictions for the residue, so there's no point in actually swabbing.)

      I happen to think it would be really cool to have a secret compartment. I think they're technologically nifty, and it would be a reasonably safe place to store things that I don't want to be stolen.

    78. Re:How did they prove intent? by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      I would mod you up if I could...we don't even live in an area where we can know that we're getting what would be medically helpful for my wife. We just have to hope that it's high in CBDs, which it probably won't be (b/c it's not what gets you high), and we get to take constant risk of ruining our lives over 1/4oz a month, roughly. But every cop I've ever dealt with in relation to it has treated me like I was scum and that I was part of the crumbling structure of society.

      <sarcasm>Guess I don't mind my wife being on umpteen pills a day though, it sure is cheap and won't cause any long term problems like weight gain, hair loss, destruction of reproductive organs, development of uncontrollable spasms (ticks), insomnia, or anything else.</sarcasm>

    79. Re:How did they prove intent? by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Read the law again. Nowhere does it mention your quoted text. The word 'intent' is used twice, once in the summary, and once in section B. In both cases it's used in the context of someone building or installing the hidden compartment, and not the person who happens to be driving the car.

      (B) No person shall knowingly design, build, construct, or fabricate a vehicle with a hidden compartment, or modify or alter any portion of a vehicle in order to create or add a hidden compartment, with the intent to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance.

    80. Re:How did they prove intent? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      You repeated the troopers' claim without qualification, immediately after calling the description of those claims, "facts".

      No, I'll say AGAIN - I just quoted the original article after the summary and the derivative article linked in the summary did NOT. Were they telling the truth? Who knows. But it was clearly worth mentioning their explanation. And, I would have assumed you know what quoting a word like "facts" means (which I did *first*!) since you then did it several times yourself. Sorry, calling you an open mouth breather was a disservice to open mouth breathers.

      I had no attitude, agenda, or subjective opinion on this (unlike you, obviously). I was just stating ALL of the details form the article instead of what the post picked-and-chose out of it, and that if you look at the full article it clearly gives the police explanation (i.e., their *intent* - the original question in this thread you derailed). It's up to the courts to decide who is telling the truth. That's why I SAID it will be interesting to see if they find traces of drugs in the compartment. If they don't, and this guy didn't already have a criminal record, it's probably going to be dismissed...

    81. Re:How did they prove intent? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? Legalize and control it Federally and thousands of sadistic Mexican drug cartel members will be out of jobs. Think of their families! You could mess up the entire Southwest drug and arms trade that way - how irresponsible of you.

    82. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idiom is "bald faced lies" not "bold faced lies".

    83. Re:How did they prove intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $2500-5500 per pound

      Oh, geez, I haven't been keeping up. Last time I was around good weed was $120 a key - about $800 today.

      I was easy going through an ounce or two per week between what I smoked, shared, and gave away.

      I think you might be surprised at how the quality has changed. You can still get crappy mexican weed for the same price range you remember per pound. With smoking, sharing and so forth you could go through quite a lot of it. The fancy pants expensive hydroponically grown selectively bred strains that are floating around today are a bit stronger... Unless you have a LOT of friends and give away tons of it, you could never hope to go through an ounce or two a week. No sane person would ever roll a joint out of good weed - there's no point. A couple of puffs and you're done.

    84. Re:How did they prove intent? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Yeah, so I hear. I can dig having somewhat higher potency and all; for one thing, wouldn't have to inhale as much smoke. (Humans are funny. Watched folks come up to the campfire one night as we sat and turned the pig; they'd walk around up wind, then fire up a smoke.) Back when, my own preference was to ingest the stuff - takes more (2.4 times, according to one source back then, from a university study) but gives longer, smoother buzz.

      From what a few people have told me the past few years, tho, today's weed is so wicked strong I'd almost be nervous to take a hit. Could just be I am more tuned to the active ingredients. I must have been lucky, back when, never had any truly crappy weed - even stuff grown in a flower pot on a window sill gave a decent buzz. Jeez, just figured it out, it's been almost forty years since. Wow. Time flies, even when you're not having fun.

    85. Re:How did they prove intent? by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      In case he's a drug trafficker, I hope he rots in jail.

      I hope someone shoots you in the head.

      +1 What makes drug sales representatives so rotten. They are just demonstrating an act of civil disobediance.

    86. Re:How did they prove intent? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Can he prove that someone else previously owned the car?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    87. Re:How did they prove intent? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      It is against federal law to check arrest records unless you are going into law enforcement or the military.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    88. Re:How did they prove intent? by sjames · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have to. The prosecution has to prove their case including that he is the only owner of the car. That includes that he never loaned it to someone long term. He might choose to introduce evidence or even the bare claim that he loaned it out or that he bought it used in order to make reasonable doubt explicit.

  3. Strange indeed by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Strange indeed by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      No, as long as you can prove it was there when you bought the car and you knew nothing of it. Good luck with that.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:Strange indeed by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      Only if you can prove you had no intent to use the compartment you didn't know about

    3. Re:Strange indeed by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The way its worded may be, the way its gets applies will not be.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:Strange indeed by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

      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... sure you've got the Libretarians. But they've got so many people who confuse the Enlightenmen ideals of life, liberty, property and social contract with being a douchy loudmouth piece of shit who's only concern is getting high that they fairly well marginalize theselves.

    5. Re:Strange indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it does. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the Law.

    6. Re:Strange indeed by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, 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.

    7. Re:Strange indeed by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      many of us are complaining, but a while ago, the US left 'one person, one vote' and became 'one dollar, one vote'. in that sense, we lost 100% of our power as citizens to control our own government.

      its now all about special interests who get to decide the laws and who gets to PROFIT from them.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    8. Re:Strange indeed by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      guilty until proven innocent like?

    9. Re:Strange indeed by TheLink · · Score: 0

      the US left 'one person, one vote' and became 'one dollar, one vote'. in that sense, we lost 100% of our power as citizens to control our own government.

      Bullshit. How did one dollar become one vote?

      The buck stops at the voter. The voter still decides who to vote for and thus still has the power to control the government.

      Unless your elections are completely made up like in some dictatorships (in which case there would be no need for those dollars either),

      Go speak to some voters some time and get your eyes opened by how many voters are indeed voluntarily voting for those people. Some happily even. The government may be giving them exactly what they want - "tough action on drugs" etc.

      --
    10. Re:Strange indeed by fafalone · · Score: 1

      And if that compartment is actually full of drugs and you didn't know? (This sort of thing has in fact happened).

      Personally I think laws against both are unconstitutional, but that's not the best argument. Good luck ever convincing anyone in the legal system you didn't know.

    11. Re:Strange indeed by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      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..

      Agreed, however today he would probably be considered a terrorist and sent to Gitmo.

    12. Re:Strange indeed by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It would be exactly the same as if you bought a used car and then a search of the car turned up a bag of cocaine. "Good luck" with your argument that it was there when you bought it and you didn't know it existed.

    13. Re:Strange indeed by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      Wait... did I miss something? When did the government start giving half a fuck about the constitution?

    14. Re:Strange indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably?

      He helped overthrow his government, trained and served with armed terrorist gangs, served as a regional warlord over territory held by those terrorists during the insurgency. After overthrowing the rightful democratic government and seizing power, he repeatedly used anti-terror laws to undermine political rivals, including his own deputy. He practised and advocated ethnic cleansing against natives, a policy that would lead directly to Andrew Jackson's later genocidal use of chemical weapons against cooperating natives. And he forced up to 600 members of a minority ethnic group to work as slave-labour for him, including children, even forcing enslaved women to bare his children who were then sold into slavery.

      Terrorist, warlord, war-criminal, despot, slaver, child slaver, adulterer and probably rapist.

    15. Re:Strange indeed by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      What the pigs can do next to make even more money is auction off the car without removing the compartment or telling the buyer it is there. Then they pull them over the next day for the same crime and confiscate the car again for another auction. You make money auctioning off the same car over and over and your arrests for drug offenses go up making your department look good.

      It's stories like these that make me rejoice when I read about someone shooting an officer. They are part of a criminal gang and they should be dealt with in the harshest manner possible. Since this criminal gang is sponsored by the government, you cannot use the law to clean it up. Our only recourse is to start killing them and their families off one at a time. Perhaps after enough of them and their loved ones were killed they may have trouble recruiting new gang members.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    16. Re:Strange indeed by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      One dollar => one ad / one show / one network => one vote.

      Ads, and television in general, do not need to be truthful, just entertaining. If you've seen most of the voters out there you would know how easily swayed they are by what the see on television and what they hear on the radio. I would wager that if you took the Ds and Rs off the ballots, you'd find that the first person listed would win nearly every single election. People just do do any research. Never have, never will. It's one of the primarily reasons the electoral college is used - the founders simply didn't trust the people to make the most basic of informed decisions.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    17. Re:Strange indeed by acoustix · · Score: 1

      guilty until proven innocent like?

      That seems to be working for Norman....er....wait...

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    18. Re:Strange indeed by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If you've seen most of the voters out there you would know how easily swayed they are by what the see on television and what they hear on the radio.

      Sure but it's still the voter's decision and responsibility. Nobody is forcing the voter to vote according to the dollar. In other countries candidates can and do win without huge financial backing against those that have deep pockets. The buck stops at the voters. The more they realize that the closer they will be to changing things. If money stops winning elections, the politicians will have to try other methods.

      And is money actually winning elections? From what I see, many of the US voters do actually want the stuff the politicians promise them more than the other stuff. For example, their priorities are stuff like gay marriage or no gay marriage, abortion or no abortion, marijuana or not, etc. Not whether their candidate can be bought or not ;). I bet most of the candidates deep down don't really care that much about those issues and are happy to give the majority of the voters whatever they want on those. And return favours to their sponsors (corps) on things that typically most voters don't care that much about - copyright act extensions, patent laws etc.

      The problem is when huge numbers of voters want very different things, opposing things even. So naturally huge numbers are going to be unhappy whatever the politician does. So the corporations back more than one candidate, that way whoever wins they get what they want.

      So it might be that the money is following the votes about as much as the votes are following the money.

      --
    19. Re:Strange indeed by niado · · Score: 1

      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.

      There were no "police" (as we currently understand the concept) in Jefferson's time. The current relationship between law enforcement, prosecution, and judges is the result of 200 years of societal evolution.

    20. Re:Strange indeed by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Does this law apply if you buy a used car and you don't even know about the hidden compartment?

      Only if you have a prior drug conviction. Subsection (4)(D) makes it a strict liability crime to "operate, possess, or use" such a car (i.e. without any requirement of intent). Otherwise, you have to "knowingly" use or modify the car.

      And yes, that's perfectly Constitutional. It would also be Constitutional to just outright ban hidden compartments for any purpose -- especially as a matter of state law. There is broadly speaking no real requirement of a mens rea component under the Constitution in laws like this.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    21. Re:Strange indeed by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I would guess that even if you manage to prove your innocence and walk free they'll still seize the car and you'll never get it back.

    22. Re:Strange indeed by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1
      In post-Constitutional America, Constitution violates you.

      (Sorry.)

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    23. Re:Strange indeed by PRMan · · Score: 1

      "in exchange for religeous theology in public schools"

      Ha ha ha ha ha. Religious theology was removed from public schools in the 1960s. And your hero Thomas Jefferson had a non-denominational Christian chapel built in the capital building.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    24. Re:Strange indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strict liability in criminal law should be reserved for police states.

      The United States of America is a police state.

  4. We can all sleep peacefully now... by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 3, Funny

    that this car is is prison.

    --
    Sent from my ENIAC
    1. Re:We can all sleep peacefully now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess this is 'tech'?

  5. Easy day in court by bob_super · · Score: 1

    > 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...)

  6. Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by hurwak-feg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How do the LEOs know what someone's intention is? I could argue it is to store sensitive work material or items sought after by thieves. What is wrong with putting drugs in there? I have a prescription for Oxycodone before. There are plenty of junkies that would love to get their hands on that. So does this mean police can arrest someone because they think they might have intentions of doing something illegal? Are they going to compensate people for their time and legal fees for arrest based on nothing more than speculation? This is insane. I will admit I didn't RTFA.

    1. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Intent to distribute isn't actually a BS law. It's usually based either on having an excessive amount of the drug(more than you would have for personal use) or having the drug packaged in way indicating an intent to distribute. It's not really a stretch to say that if you've got 50 dime bags you probably intent to deal.

    3. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by tftp · · Score: 1

      "intent to distribute" has been in the drug laws for a long time.

      And in this case it has to be proven, at least by circumstancial evidence - like by a recent conviction for a drug-related offense, or by presence of drugs elsewhere in the car or with the driver.

      My car came with several semi-secret locations built by the manufacturer. They are to be used to store items that you don't want to be stolen if someone breaks into the car. (The car cannot be easily stolen due to RFID security and absence of wires to short.) You can keep your money there, credit cards, checkbook, jewelry (if you have it,) and other such things when you are on a road trip.

    4. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Usually in criminal trials they need to have some evidence that you intended to use it for (whatever purpose). In this case, such evidence may be that he had an address of a known drug dealer typed into his GPS, or he had correspondence with someone indicating his desire to use the compartment for drugs, or he said that was the purpose to an undercover policeman, or even possibly that he is a known drug dealer.

      If there is no evidence that his intent was to use it for drugs and he has a reasonable alternative explanation for his compartment, then it will be difficult to convict him on this charge, although it is still up to the jury. (IANAL YMMV more info here).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Fwipp · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, you see, he's black: http://www.nuttynewstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Norman-Gurley.png

      Therefore, he's obviously all caught up in drugs, and the police have done a fine service by removing this violent criminal from society.

    7. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by physicsphairy · · 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.

    8. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by michaelmalak · · Score: 2

      How do the LEOs know what someone's intention is?

      They only need probable cause, a threshold which can be less than 50-50 according to a 1983 Supreme Court decision.

    9. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by tibit · · Score: 2

      This is the insightful post in this whole mess. All that we really needed. No other posts needed. Seriously.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    10. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by ewieling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nobody buys in bulk for a discount anymore?

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    11. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 0

      How do the LEOs know what someone's intention is?

      Because, contrary to the Slashdot groupthink, most experienced LEOs aren't idiots.

      *Proving* intent is not easy, nor should it be, but day in and day out LEOs encounter situations where they know exactly what is going on - When it comes to law enforcement Occam's Razor wins every time.

    12. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Define excessive. some people would find a pound of cannabis excessive, even though its not an abnormally large amount of plant material at all. You could easily go through pounds of it making extracts and such.

      --
      Good-bye
    13. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate crime isn't thoughtcrime, same as murder isn't thoughtcrime. The difference between manslaughter and murder is intent; the difference between hate crime and murder is the same. Disclaimer: in theory. I won't say hate crime has never been abused in practice, and I do hate it when people jump to hate crime based as soon as they hear the offender's and the victim's skin colors/orientation/etc.

    14. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      So the jury get to hear about prior convictions before deciding on the accused person's guilt. Neat!

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    15. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by pspahn · · Score: 3, 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)

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    16. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horse shit.

      Day in and day out BAD COPS extort money, drugs, sex and more from innocent citizens simply because they can. That kind of abuse of power, coupled with terrible laws like the one in question only leads to more abuse.

      Saying that knowing someone's intention is an acceptable threshold because "most LEOs aren't idiots" is, in itself, idiotic, as it admits that some LEOs ARE idiots and will falsely accuse some innocent people based on zero evidence.

    17. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Riddler+Sensei · · Score: 1

      Thank you for pointing that out.

      I don't plan on becoming a felon any time soon, but I am not sure I like the whole de-citizenizing we do to felons.

    18. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, contrary to the Slashdot groupthink, most experienced LEOs aren't idiots.
       

      That's your opinion.

      And you're wrong.

      Only an idiot would want to be a cop, and the job is self-selecting for
      control freaks and bullies.

      So take your assurances that cops "know what's going on" and shove
      them up your ass, you redneck moron.

    19. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It depends on how the law is written. Strict liability doesn't require mens rea, and even due diligence is not a defense. While the link claims that "United States usually applies strict liability to only the most minor crimes or infractions", it then goes on to say that:

      In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense. In these states, 22 as of 2007, it is possible to face felony charges despite not knowing the age of the other person, or even if the minor presented identification showing an age of eighteen or higher. Frequently, this applies to all sex offenses.

      Guess which direction American law is headed in? We have to throw out centuries old protections like the common law requirement of mens rea, because of the existential threat of drug dealers, or terrorists, or NSA leakers, or somebody boinking a 17 year old.

    20. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where's the source for your claims that the suspect *is* a convicted felon?

    21. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by v1 · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    22. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Good to know, I'm always happy to improve my legal knowledge.

      In this case because the arrest was for 'hidden compartment with intent to transport drugs,' I would assume mens rea does need to be demonstrated, although you are right we would need to actually read the law (and possibly relevant court cases) to be sure.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    23. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate crimes are specific crimes meant to not only harm the victim, but to intimidate a group of people through violence. Please go little beyond the term 'hate crime' and find the definition before judging something.

    24. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Intent to distribute is a bullshit law when it fails to take into account any kind of common sense.

      That law has one fundamental faulty premise. "More than you would have for personal use". Who is deciding that, and are those amounts even reasonable?

      Uh huh. What the fuck is Costco for again? That's right..... It's where I can buy 2 years worth of toilet paper as a man (36.9 seconds worth if your female). I jest of course, but my point is that people like to buy in bulk to get great deals. On a smaller scale, is a dozen eggs even considered personal use? I would think that would depend on rate of consumption correct?

      Then there is the biggest component of that fallacy. If you could go to jail for even buying one roll of TP, would you not attempt to purchase as much as possible during your illegal activity to purchase it?

      Those thresholds that "determine" intent are based on faulty logic and willfully ignorant assumptions. Far too many people get accused of intent to distribute when it was really intent-to-put-a-shitload-away-in-the-freezer.

      It would be one thing if I had 1000 DVD players in my garage. These drugs are consumable in nature and no different than root beer, mac n' cheese, or cigarettes. By their logic nobody would have basement freezers, mason jars with preserves in it, etc.

    25. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      This is the way everyone in that state should react. Massive civil disobedience and campaigns where everyone installs a secret compartment in their vehicles.

      Like to see them prosecute that shit afterwards...

    26. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair it was a good price for 12 pounds of nutmeg

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    27. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by tftp · · Score: 2

      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 driving faster than N mph until you see (N+1) displayed. You can't even [trivially] measure the instant speed. The police does not stop anyone for that - unless they want to. Given that everyone drives at about (max+5) mph, this gives them a perfect excuse to stop anyone at any time. Among other excuses are verbal statements of the LEO; trained drug dogs that are ordered by the handler to react; and the old but good "search them all and see what we can hang them with" approach. Are you sure, for example, that your rental car is absolutely free of any traces of any drugs? If drugs are detected, you can be sure that your day is ruined. BTW, I read in the news that nearly all US cash has traces of drugs on them.

    28. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by swb · · Score: 1

      "Intent to distribute" started out life reasonably well when they started decriminalizing drugs, usually pot, back in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

      Usually the rhetoric was that the user was bad but was mostly a victim of the evil dealer who profited selling the evil drugs to the hapless user. Therefore, we should "decriminalize" drugs somewhat and make the penalties somewhat less severe for drug users but still look the line the Appian Way with the crucified bodies of drug dealers.

      Anyway, they ended up codifying a number of "intent to distribute" laws which were meant to keep severe felony charges against dealers. Usually quantity was what mattered, but they also invented ideas like multiple containers, drug dealing equipment (scales, empty bags) and other similar kinds of criteria to distinguish between personal use and dealing.

      Anyway, the original idea was mostly reasonable -- stop sending a guy with a joint to felony prison for 10-20 years but still "go after the dealer".

      Of course now it's just gotten out of hand and is used in strange situations like secret boxes in your car.

    29. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope still a fail,

      (B) No person shall knowingly design, build, construct, or fabricate a vehicle with a hidden compartment, or modify or alter any portion of a vehicle in order to create or add a hidden compartment, with the intent to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance.

      (E) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of designing a vehicle with a hidden compartment used to transport a controlled substance. Except as otherwise provided in this division, designing a vehicle with a hidden compartment used to transport a controlled substance is a felony of the fourth degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of division (B) of this section, designing a vehicle with a hidden compartment used to transport a controlled substance is a felony of the third degree.

      self reciprocating, if it was built it was to be used for drugs, if they had nothing to hide they would not have made it

    30. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by weilawei · · Score: 1

      You should be getting a knock on the door in 3..2..1...

      Nutmeg and mace (the outer skin of a nutmeg) contain mrysticin, a precursor to making MDMA. They can also be taken by themselves as a drug in their own right.

    31. Re: Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Nobody buys an ounce of dime bags at bulk rate. You buy an ounce, or you buy a dime bag, you don't buy an ounce of dime bags.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    32. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      That law has one fundamental faulty premise. "More than you would have for personal use". Who is deciding that, and are those amounts even reasonable?

      In theory, that would be doctors and/or the FDA. If you have a year's supply of oxycodone, and pharmacies only ever give out a two-week bottle, than you have far more than what you will personally use. Unlike toilet paper, addictive prescription drugs are not normally sold in bulk.

      Whether or not any given police department follows such reasonable guidelines is another question entirely.

    33. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What, like felons can't own handguns? This is new to you? Committing certain crimes often limits your future opportunities. Or do you believe that all slates are cleaned after jail time is finished?

    34. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, and there are no white people in prison for drugs. You /. race batters are funny. It is not only black people that have the rights violated. The government believes in violating everyone's rights equally if there is a profit to be made ($120 day per prisoner) . Actually you are better off being black. When is the last time Al Sharpton came down to defend the rights of whitey. It just doesn't happen. Stop with all this gay black people are victims funniness.

      Today the word nigger has a positive connotation, while white has a negative one. You gotta be a true nigger. But you definitely don't ever under any circumstance want to be whitey.

    35. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proving an intent. Hmm, I would be satisfied for the necessity of performing surveillance if a person formerly convicted of drug related crime would use his or her vehicle for regular visits across the border without no known relatives or associates provably related to legal businesses on the other side and have a secret compartment in the vehicle. Now the surveillance should reveal the act of loading illegal substance to the said compartment. Now If the subject crosses the border the police gets him and the intent of smuggling using a secret compartment is proven.
        Terahertz detectors at the border and quietly insertable and attachable electronic noses for detecting substances.. perhaps DHS gets to these when the government has finished with Hellfires all the American and foreign preachers saying horrible, horrible things outside the nations borders.

    36. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or do you believe that all slates are cleaned after jail time is finished?

      Only in civilized countries.

    37. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Because, contrary to the Slashdot groupthink, most experienced LEOs aren't idiots.

      True. Inexperienced law enforcement officers (and non-officers) are, to a large extent, idiots.
      Experienced ones are, to a large extent, assholes.

      Your success as a policeman is measured not in how peaceful the society has become, but in number of people arrested and convicted. This selects for the biggest anuses.

    38. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by westlake · · Score: 2

      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

    39. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by russotto · · Score: 1

      Because, contrary to the Slashdot groupthink, most experienced LEOs aren't idiots.

      They are power-mad lying scum, however.

    40. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by tftp · · Score: 1

      If you have a year's supply of oxycodone, and pharmacies only ever give out a two-week bottle, than you have far more than what you will personally use.

      What if you are going on a month-long business trip to Sierra Leone? What if the weathermen predict three weeks of hurricanes? What if you are afraid of three weeks of hurricanes, regardless of the forecast? What if you are disabled and cannot go to the pharmacy yourself, and your help is unreliable? What if you have paranoid fears of interruption of supplies? What if you suffer from Alzheimer's disease and simply forgot what you have? What if you lost your bottle and cannot find it?

    41. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by tftp · · Score: 1

      It's a great way to implement mob rule without having a mob at the location.

    42. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Wait, where does the article mention that he had a prior felony?

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    43. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by tftp · · Score: 1

      Therefore, he's obviously all caught up in drugs, and the police have done a fine service by removing this violent criminal from society.

      In the eyes of many of our wardens (LEO,) we are all blacks, and we have no rights, and our existence is worthless.

      It may be so that black-skinned blacks are more likely, statistically, to be involved in crime. But that changes nothing. As unemployment spreads, the share of white-skinned blacks will be growing.

    44. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by tftp · · Score: 1

      Only an idiot would want to be a cop, and the job is self-selecting for control freaks and bullies.

      ... considering the serious drawbacks of being a cop. Don't you just love to deal with the scum of this Earth all day and all night? Isn't it wonderful to approach, alone, a group of weed-smoking black teenagers at 3am? Isn't it fun to drive your vehicle for hours in pouring, freezing rain, chasing house alarms that are cancelled before you get there? Police job is dirty, repetitive, boring, and dangerous. Your peers are power-mad, steroid-popping, angry people like Chris Dorner. They are all armed; your adversaries are armed too. Nobody loves you. This is a job only for those who are willing to take these drawbacks in exchange for something greater. Often desire for power over others is that "greater" thing. Among other reasons are: ability to extort; ability to use services of criminals; ability to shoot first and ask questions never; ability to feel above the "civilians". And, finally, the desire to clear the society, to help the innocent and to punish the guilty. That last case is far from being common. Many students sign up for Police Academy having those rose-colored ideals. Most of them wash out (or get washed out) within months of service.

    45. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know he has a record? Where does it say that?

    46. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Or do you believe that all slates are cleaned after jail time is finished?

      In many civilized countries, juries don't get to hear about prior convictions, but the prior convictions are relevant to sentencing. So, no, slates are not wiped entirely clean, but juries are not swayed by the existence of a prior record.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    47. Re: Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Probably true, but what about people like Richard Paey?. They had to have 3 trials, pressure his doctor to testify against him(they threatened his medical license), and put pressure on the jury to get a conviction.

      Then, once in prison due to the 'cruel and unusual' clause they had to find somebody to treat his pain - and that doctor promptly prescribed a morphine pump that puts the drug right into his spine. At a cost well in excess of a number of years of pill-popping.

      They deliberately set the 'intent to sell' amounts low because criminal distributers simply arranged to never be caught with more than a few packets at a time.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    48. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Given that everyone drives at about (max+5) mph, this gives them a perfect excuse to stop anyone at any time.

      What's even funnier is if you're not going max+5(10) they'll stop you for 'impeding traffic'. You just can't win.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    49. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had sex as a teen, you have child pornography inside your brain!

    50. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      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)

      I have a battery operated scale that goes down to 100th of a gram measurements. I do indeed use it for measuring quantities of illegal substances (generally MDMA and amphetamine; as my most preferred substance - LSD - can't accurately be measured with that kind of scale). I have never however intended to distribute the drugs at all (in the eyes of the law, probably, since 'take one and give one to my friend' technically counts as distribution; but it's not in the spirit of the law from my point of view).

      The entire point of having the scales is to know how much of a substance I'm taking. Especially with the likes of MDMA, I know the exact amount required for me to have specific effects. Too much and I feel "overwhelmed"; too little and I feel myself frustrated that I'm "not quite there". Through experimentation, I know the amounts that are suitable for me in different kinds of environments. The scales help me measure out those quantities and ensure I always have a good - and safe - time.

      (note that I also ensure quality/purity of substance; measuring accurate quantities of an unknown white powder would be kind of pointless)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    51. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, try that in my state. On the Interstate here, the minimum is 45 MPH I believe. Last night, I had a flat tire, and had to drive over an hour home on my spare, which is only rated for a maximum of 55, well below the limit of 65 and well below the average 75-80 that is typical of MA highways, to say nothing of the people flying by at 100+ MPH. I didn't get pulled over.

      On the other hand, I've been pulled over simply for driving at 3 AM, after being followed for over half an hour by a police officer, in a very obvious Charger, who would run up behind me, then back off. Had to let me go, since I wasn't doing anything illegal, especially not driving over the limit.

    52. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      What if, the moment the police started to pull him over, he had opened the compartment up so it wasn't concealed?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    53. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Police job is dirty, repetitive, boring, and dangerous. Your peers are power-mad, steroid-popping, angry people like Chris Dorner. They are all armed; your adversaries are armed too. Nobody loves you. This is a job only for those who are willing to take these drawbacks in exchange for something greater.

      naturally cops want to do things that make their lives more fun, like force unsuspecting people to undergo repeated anal probing. That must make it all worthwhile.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    54. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by tftp · · Score: 1

      I cannot imagine what fun could be in torturing people... but the facts are that the police does these things - and much more that does not get reported. It's very hard to report abuse when your abuser holds in his hand a little plastic bag with white powder. If you resist, this bag will be "discovered on the suspect" - and nothing will save you from that point on.

    55. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know anything about drugs, but for most products you get closer to "one big package" when you buy in bulk, rather than "many small packages".

      Saving on packaging is part of the reason for the discount.

    56. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by qbast · · Score: 1

      Of course it will. Prosecutor always add every possible (plus some ridiculous) charge to force plea bargain.

    57. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by qbast · · Score: 1

      Then you get to explain these unusual circumstances to jury and judge.

    58. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Hate crimes are thought crimes like murder is a thought crime.

    59. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by qbast · · Score: 1

      Well, you look shifty and you are black so it is quite obvious you are up to no good. I hereby charge you with Intent To Do Evil. Oh, and I arrest you for resisting arrest.

    60. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      We've been working hard to pass a "No Victim, No Crime" statute here in NH. No success so far, but even being defeated is a good illustration of what government has become, vs. what it's purported to be for.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    61. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that don't understand conditional probabilities.

    62. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "intent to distribute" has been in the drug laws for a long time.

      and the sole determining factor is quantity.. and that quantity is fairly small.. anyone buying weed for a weekend 'cheech and chong' movie marathon is guilty of 'intent to distribute' simply from buying enough weed to keep up with the movies.

    63. Re: Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Pssh... Silliness. One of those cooking ladies on TV told me I should always separate my chicken breast into serving-sized portions before freezing it.

    64. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by N!k0N · · Score: 1

      Provided that Oceania stays at war with Eastasia and allied with Eurasia, everything in your proposed future will be double-plus good...

      ... or something like that, anyway.

    65. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or do you believe that all slates are cleaned after jail time is finished?

      Only in civilized countries.

      And which ones are those?

    66. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      So basically, the Borg Collective. The problematic part is if this is all sub-conscious and automatic, obviously.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    67. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      How do the LEOs know what someone's intention is?

      That's easy. They check to see how dark his skin color is.

      Leagalese is actually rather easy to understand, once you know the code.

    68. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disturbing? It sounds cool. It sounds like a borg collective.

    69. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Alastair Reynolds' universe, that is something called a Demarchist, a cybernetic based democracy. It is in direct competition with Conjoiners, who run a more meritocratic and much more invasive cybernetic hive mind. Ultras are extremely individualistic, but take their Augmentation and Cybernetics to about as extreme as you can get (Extra arms, Massive genetic modification, Centaurs, etc)

      Then you get to all sorts of other smaller factions that may go natural, may be completely non organic, and everything in between.

      the fact that Demarchist style cybernetics are near future means we are freewheeling into cyberpunk.

    70. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      disturbing??? More like HORRIFYING if you ask me. Imagine what would result if:

        a) some people learn to reflexively do as the polls suggest. Easy enough, we already have a sizable number who "would jump off a cliff if their friends did it" (to use the cliched parent response to many foolish teen behaviours)

      and b) a group like lulsec or /b-tards who decide to game the system for the lulz

      neuro-electronically posted poll question: should I beat my dog for shitting on the carpet again?

      Conscienceless, remorseless /b-tard hive mind answer: YES!! Beat it to death with a sack of bricks, set fire to the corpse, use the pyre to burn your house down! You'll never have to worry about stepping in dog shit EVER AGAIN!! Oh and pics or it didn't happen....

    71. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      How do the LEOs know what someone's intention is?

      What does low Earth orbit have to do with it?

    72. Re:Mind Readers? Thought Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've long lamented the lack of a canon Borg origin story. I think you might have something here.

  7. You're allowed to have secret compartments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is in the constitution.

    1. Re:You're allowed to have secret compartments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're allowed to have secret compartments

      It is in the constitution.

      I was born with one. My sister has two.

    2. Re:You're allowed to have secret compartments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Yeah well your sister has been showing them off on the internet. They aren't so secret anymore.
      That dirty fucking whore.

      P.S. what's her number?

    3. Re:You're allowed to have secret compartments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (No) thanks to Roe v. Wade, every uterus has been removed from the jurisdiction of state laws. Think of it as a piece of Washington DC beyond every cervix.

  8. Full of Nothing by fekmist · · Score: 1

    So he had vaccum sealed a compartment in his car? Could be dangerous...

    1. Re:Full of Nothing by bob_super · · Score: 2

      After all the Tesla stories, finally one about potential car implosions!

    2. Re:Full of Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he had vaccum sealed a compartment in his car? Could be dangerous...

      You don't know how power brakes work, do you?

    3. Re:Full of Nothing by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      But he was driving a Tesla. He kept a fire extinguisher in the secret compartment.

    4. Re:Full of Nothing by fekmist · · Score: 1

      I do now. Thank you sir!

    5. Re:Full of Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually it was much more exotic than that: a container full of vacuum still contains *space*.

  9. What a joke.... by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Any lawyer worth half a shit will get this tossed out. It's a useless law for it's intended purpose, it's designed as a plea bargain tool. If they decide to use this particular case to test the legality of this law, they are going to be sorely disappointed.

    1. Re:What a joke.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. In addition, I'd like to see civil suits that are sufficient to deprive any associated cops of their retirements.

    2. Re:What a joke.... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Please tell us what defense the lawyer will use, or what grounds he will use to invalidate the law.

    3. Re:What a joke.... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Why are you only blaming the cops? What about the legislators who drafted and passed the law, the governor who signed it, and (if it's prosecuted) the DA who pursues it.

    4. Re:What a joke.... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      First amendment, second amendment, fourth amendment, ninth amendment...

      Or the fact that you need solid evidence in order to convict someone.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:What a joke.... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Why are you only blaming the cops? What about the legislators who drafted and passed the law, the governor who signed it, and (if it's prosecuted) the DA who pursues it.

      I suggest to let the cops deprived by their retirement deal with those.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    6. Re:What a joke.... by EGenius007 · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that any officer of the law trained in "speed determination" and alleging to have witnessed speeding was sufficient grounds to uphold a speeding charge, without any mechanical confirmation whatsoever, I'm less than optimistic.

      --
      I know what you did last summer. Just kidding, I don't work at the NSA.
    7. Re:What a joke.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they are the ones who are on the frontlines enforcing this horseshit. "Just following orders" is not a legal excuse to do unconcionable things and these assholes already selectively pick and choose which laws they want to enforce anyway. If the higher ups won't listen to the police telling them a law is a bad idea (like that would really happen) then the next best thing is for them to refuse to do it. Once nothing gets done, those legislators might actually change thier minds. I know I've heard you push this idea of civil disobedience here many times. Yet now when it is about a cop suddenly we should give them a pass as they are just doing thier job. I know you're a pig fucker and it shows.

    8. Re:What a joke.... by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Human ability to judge distance without references is notoriously unreliable beyond 20 feet or so. It takes actual practice to determine the size and range of things at a distance (see any scope marked for mils) or a reference (the average person appears X tall at distance Y. However, if you see a car way far away, and it's moving quickly, that'd need to be quite some change in apparent size in a short period of time. Plus, you'd really need a stopwatch for that.

    9. Re:What a joke.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      " useless law for it's intended purpose,"

      Useless like that apostrophe?

    10. Re:What a joke.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the cops can use this law when they "think" they know what is going on and they can't prove it with actual hard evidence. There are many laws like this that are based on assumption and judgement when other existing laws that require real actual physical proof can't be used and they still want to charge the person with something. Reckless driving is a very common one. Police in many states are required to have calibrated standardized speed detection devices to give you a speeding ticket, radar, vascar, laser etc. This is required to be shown in court. This is to protect YOU from cops making up numbers and removing random judgement calls. How do cops charge you with speeding without one of these devices in their car and make it hold up in court? They give you a reckless driving ticket, driving too fast for conditions, or an improper lane change ticket instead. Those are all judgement calls and require no proof other than your word against his. Guess who is going to lose that one in court? Not the cop.

      Cameras should be required in all cop cars and the first cop that accidentally erases a tape or can not produce a video of a moving violation should be charged with tampering with evidence and the case immediately dropped and a public record tallying up how many times a cop "lost the tape" for what ever reason. Any cop that that does see the benefit to himself of having a video running in his car or even worse, against having one is a shady cop.

      Maybe these stories of these these random criminals stopped and surrounded by cops that for some reason swiftly and randomly reach for a cell phone for some unknown reason won't be shot to death because one of the men in blue "thought it looked like a gun". Yeah, I can not understand how anyone believes that all of these people decide hey, I'm surrounded by cops, my hands are up, they are yelling at me, let me rapidly in a swift motion reach towards my wasteband, grab my cell phone and call my boo.

    11. Re:What a joke.... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      "Just following orders" is not a legal excuse

      No, but neither is issuing those orders.

    12. Re:What a joke.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chewbacca Defense

    13. Re:What a joke.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the has no record for felony trafficking 1 or 2 and they have no laboratory evidence then the defense wins. Law will probably not get overturned. That never happens.

    14. Re:What a joke.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1st) Irrelevant. Neither speech, religion, nor the press are implicated.
      2nd) Irrelevant. Firearms are not affected by the statute In fact, there's a specific exception for compartments for carrying firearms as long as there's no drugs in them.
      4th) Possibly relevant, but that will depend on the specific facts at trial. The case would most likely be decided on the motions in limine.
      9th) What rights are actually implicated here?

      The evidence is pretty solid. They don't have to care about proving intent. He has a previous conviction for drug offenses, and section (4)(D) ensures a conviction if such a person merely operates, possesses, or uses such a vehicle. You often lose a few privileges if you're a criminal. e.g. Voting, living near children, etc. In Ohio, this includes owning cars with secret compartments if you're a drug offender, apparently.

    15. Re:What a joke.... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      1st) Carrying literature which is contrary to the government is still free speech, and could be transported out of harms way
      2nd If there's a specific exception for compartments for carrying firearms, he merely needs to mention his desire to get one
      4th) Possibly relevant, but that will depend on the specific facts at trial. Indeed.
      9th) Got me, too.

      I would expect the 5th to show up, though. He is under no requirement that he even say what it was to be used for. The prosecution will have to show that he intended to carry illegal drugs in the compartment. That's hard to do if there is an absence of drug traffiking in his life.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    16. Re:What a joke.... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      1st) Carrying literature which is contrary to the government is still free speech, and could be transported out of harms way

      Meh. Weaksauce. There's no facts to suggest he was doing such a thing, and you don't get to challenge the Constitutionality of laws without having standing to do so. Besides, there are other ways to accomplish this other than secret compartment, so banning that method wouldn't implicate free speech either. Plus the law is narrowly tailored for a specific issue that doesn't implicate speech.

      2nd If there's a specific exception for compartments for carrying firearms, he merely needs to mention his desire to get one

      That could be an interesting defense argument, but I think he's going to have to have more intent than "I'd like to have one someday" if he already has a potentially illegal compartment for one. I'm too out of practice to remember whether the burden for proving this would be on the defense or the prosecution. I think on the defense.

      Also, as a convicted felon, he might not legally be able to own and carry a firearm, so that may be moot.

      I would expect the 5th to show up, though. He is under no requirement that he even say what it was to be used for. The prosecution will have to show that he intended to carry illegal drugs in the compartment. That's hard to do if there is an absence of drug traffiking in his life.

      Nope. He has a prior drug conviction according to the third link in the summary. That means that under (4)(D), he has strict liability for operating such a vehicle. Intent won't matter. Heck, there's no need to even interrogate the guy or call him as a witness for the prosecution.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    17. Re:What a joke.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You "need" no evidence, solid or otherwise to convict. You need only persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. That's done with stories, not facts. Facts help sell the story, but there's no requirement that they exist for a conviction.

  10. Tire compartment by QuantumLeaper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a hidden compartment in my car it, came that way from the Factory, it were I store my spare tire and jack. So under this crazy law, would that be illegal too?

    1. Re:Tire compartment by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      No because it specified "making it a felony to alter a vehicle to add a secret compartment".

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    2. Re:Tire compartment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the definition of the "secret compartment" according to the law? It can be broad enough that simple shoe box can be defined as a secret compartment.

    3. Re:Tire compartment by weilawei · · Score: 1

      It's only a felony to alter the vehicle if you prove intent to (summarizing here) traffick or conceal illegal drugs.

    4. Re:Tire compartment by tftp · · Score: 2

      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 bag under the seat qualify? Does a $100 shoved under the floor mat qualify?

    5. Re:Tire compartment by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      And so far they don't have a conviction, just an arrest.

      I can't imagine how they hope to prove intent, even if the driver has a criminal record, when nothing was found other than the compartment itself.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    6. Re:Tire compartment by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, if you put a subwoofer in there and are listening to gangsta rap then of course you had an intent to stash it full of weed hence you're guilty......

      stupid law.

      "we catched them between runs" well wait a week then.. if you're so sure he was doing drug runs you would think you'd have some evidence of that and could charge him with trafficking and not with precrime...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:Tire compartment by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I read an article on guys who make these compartments a while back (almost always for drug dealers). They can be really well hidden and complex to open (e.g. you have to hit several locks/switches in sequence or all at once, and then a secret hatch in the door opens, or something like that). And TFA specifically said it was a hidden compartment wired up with an electronic lock.

      So, this is a real thing, it's a REALLY common way to transport drugs and cash, and no, obviously your spare tire compartment isn't illegal

      Actually, here's an interesting article on it http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/alfred-anaya/all/

    8. Re:Tire compartment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, this is a real thing, it's a REALLY common way to transport drugs and cash

      You cannot simply use statistics to 'prove' that a certain individual is guilty. Not cops, and not courts. Besides, the government shouldn't even be in the business of telling people not to use certain drugs. No matter how you look at it, this law is disgusting.

    9. Re:Tire compartment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as was said elsewhere:
      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.

      Your questions are good, but, c'mon. Do you really take the bait from the summary that quickly? Do you prefer not to argue that the rest of the world is idiotic when you won't even do a smidgen of research. Fucking idiot.

    10. Re:Tire compartment by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      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.

      If and only if common sense prevails.

    11. Re:Tire compartment by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Install a tracker, pick up the whole network.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    12. Re:Tire compartment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No because it specified "making it a felony to alter a vehicle to add a secret compartment".

      Oh so they have proof that the driver in question performed the alteration. You've fully disassembled and reassembled YOUR used car, right?

    13. Re:Tire compartment by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They are also common for gun owners. And small business owners that don't want to pay for an armored car to collect their cash.

      There has been no analysis on the numbers of who are doing what. We assume it's all illegal, until proven otherwise, because that's easiest. Justice is about convictions and conviction rates and seizures, not catching the guilty.

    14. Re:Tire compartment by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You cannot simply use statistics to 'prove' that a certain individual is guilty. Not cops, and not courts.

      Sure you can. That's all DNA and fingerprints are - statistics. That's why they are so misunderstood and misused.

    15. Re:Tire compartment by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      That can't be illegal.

      It would be ridiculous for it to be illegal, but it can easily be illegal. All it takes is a law on the books.

    16. Re:Tire compartment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy had jack in his secret compartment and that didn't help him,

  11. How much weed ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... can the Ohio legislators fit into that empty compartment between their ears?

    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.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Here's the FBI page on prosecuting such things: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/October-2010/investigating-and-prosecuting-hidden-compartment-cases

    One more thing...we call them the Fibbies for a reason.

  13. civil forfeiture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next step: seize all his assets now that he's a "drug trafficker"!

    1. Re:civil forfeiture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The county name sounds familiar, but I could be mistaken. There was a comment on slashdot not too long ago, linking to a story about a particular town that would arrest people passing through, and use drug charges to blackmail money from them. The story focused on one vacationing family. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

  14. Tools by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Such things follow a long established general pattern where possession of the tools needed to commit a certain type of crime plus intent to use them illegally is sufficient to obtain a criminal conviction.

    The classic example of this is the possession of burglary tools - things like crowbars, lock picks etc.

    The Ohio law reads:

    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

    So really there is little new here.

    1. Re:Tools by weilawei · · Score: 2

      Again, you need to prove intent. And in some states, the possession of "burglarious instruments" is only restricted if used in the commission of a crime. For instance, in my state, Massachusetts, there aren't any laws restricting me from carrying lockpicks, slim jims--you name it, I have it. In fact, a manufacturer of such tools is locally owned and operated. I also took a course from a third-party locksmithing school, and they happily sent me materials without any background checks, but I don't need certification to possess and carry these things.

      Before someone gets on their high horse and bitches, I don't generally carry these tools around, and certainly not to break into anything. I am a member of the Locksport community, and a compartment like this in my car would be generally useful to keep nosy people from stealing my tools (not the first time someone has tried).

    2. Re:Tools by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      In this case the officers claimed a strong odor of marijuana was observed. If true it's likely they will be able to find residue, and most people would accept that as intent or evidence of past use for this illegal purpose.

      I just don't see what the big deal is. It's a law that fits with other statutes of this type, and there is probably cause for further investigation.

    3. Re:Tools by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Yes but it is quite plausible to have a hidden compartment in your car for a perfectly legal reason such as hiding valuables. The problem with this law, at least how we have been presented with the facts in this case is that you need to go to court in order to clear your name. Imagine if you had to go to court to clear your name for owning a DVR just because it could be used for copyright infringement.

    4. Re:Tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Massachusetts as well, and I knew many people who would carry around slim jims. I don't care how mindful you are, unless you are extremely lucky or don't own a car, you have locked or will lock your keys in your car. It only takes a moment of absent-mindedness, and then you'll be glad to have a friend with 'burglarious instruments.'

    5. Re:Tools by weilawei · · Score: 1

      In Massachusetts, the smell of marijuana is NOT probable cause to search a vehicle, although I have personally experience an illegal search and detention of my vehicle, myself, and my passenger. The State Trooper claimed to smell marijuana (a lie), physically hauled us out of the vehicle, put us in two separate vehicles, ripped my car apart, interrogated both of us, and then let us go (with obvious disgust, as there was nothing for him to find) while giving me a ticket for failing to use my turn signal--despite the fact that I was travelling in a straight line, not turning, and not switching lanes. I consulted multiple lawyers, and the cost of pursuing prosecution against the Commonwealth was simply too high.

    6. Re:Tools by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Sorry about your bad experience in MA.

      It is however probable cause in Ohio.

      http://www.opd.ohio.gov/RC_Casebook/search_and_seizure_II.htm

      State v. Moore (2000), 90 Ohio St. 3d 47 -- Syllabus: "The smell of marijuana, alone, by a person qualified to recognize the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a search." Warrantless search of car valid under the automobile exception. Majority finds warrantless search of the defendant's person was justified by exigent circumstances.

    7. Re:Tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should have sued them pro se. All it costs you is the filing fees. If you lose, then you lose. It's not illegal and much more fun than using attorneys.

    8. Re:Tools by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I don't care how mindful you are, unless you are extremely lucky or don't own a car, you have locked or will lock your keys in your car.

      You can be the most absent-minded person on the planet and never lock your keys in the car. My father did lock his in regularly (he was a little senile). So, when I was driving age, I came up with a simple and fool-proof way to never lock ones keys in the car. Only ever lock the car with the key. When you do that, it becomes impossible to lock your keys in the car.

    9. Re:Tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just keep two keys on my person. One is on a keychain, the other isn't. If I accidentally lock keys in the car, I can unlock the door with my spare. Bonus: no damage to my window/door.

  15. Encryption is next by nytes · · 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.

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    1. Re:Encryption is next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That law is already on the books. It is called the Homeland Security Act.

    2. Re:Encryption is next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, with your secret tubes and your secret trucks, are like a baby refusing to take a bath - case closed.

    3. Re:Encryption is next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already illegal to sell encryption software without an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) obtained through the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). Encryption software is classified as a munition. As in like guns. Although it's not terribly hard to get an ECCN license exception if you're good at skimming through the dozens of Export Administration Regulations (EAR). But the EAR is essenstially a list of license exceptions for industries with powerful lobbys like telco. The EAR is a really good example of how completely screwed up the legislative process is in the US. Congress makes compermises to satisfy lobbies that are a complete disaster to actually implement. And so you get things like the EAR.

    4. Re:Encryption is next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These laws already exist. Committing a felony with a weapon or while concealing your identity are additional crimes to the felony.

  16. Land of the Free and .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... home of fucking idiots.

  17. Did the driver known ? by jcdr · · Score: 1

    He could just have buy the truck without any knowledge of the secret compartment existence.

  18. Plausible deniability? by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

    If it's empty, how can they legally prove he knew it even existed? It's "hidden" right?

    1. Re:Plausible deniability? by weilawei · · Score: 1

      First off, if you DO know about that, lying to a federal officer is a crime, and often in other circumstances, lying to a lesser officer is also a crime. In court, if you say you didn't know about the existence of the compartment and then they find DNA or fingerprints in there that belong to you, you're really up shit creek, even if you broke no other laws.

      The best policy is simply to maintain absolute silence, except to state your name and confirm that you are mentally alert. This is the policy I followed during an illegal search of my vehicle and subsequent interrogation of my passenger and myself. I was let go (nothing to find) but given a ticket for failing to use a turn signal (while driving straight, not changing lanes).

      Silence is golden, especially once it becomes apparent you are being harassed illegally by law enforcement. Too many people can't shut their mouths and just HAVE to explain to the officer, who isn't bound by any restrictions with respect to lying to you. The officer in my case said he was a nice guy and if I'd just hand it over (which I couldn't, as I had nothing TO hand over), then he'd let me go. Well, next thing I know, I'm being physically hauled out, searched, my car is torn apart, my passenger is also interrogated. And to top it all off, I get a ticket for something I didn't do, just so he could save face (there were 3 vehicles at the scene, not counting mine.)

      Save it for the courts.

  19. End the war on drugs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And fire police.

    1. Re:End the war on drugs. by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Yes, the real issue here is, why are drugs illegal?

  20. Absolute crock of shit, this case by Eggplant62 · · Score: 3, 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.

    1. Re:Absolute crock of shit, this case by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      In this case, they might not have to ...

      TFA: "it also outlaws anybody who has been convicted of felony aggravated drug trafficking laws from operating any vehicle with hidden compartments. "

      If the person arrested has a drug trafficking felony, TFA seems to indicate just operating a vehicle with hidden compartments is enough.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    2. Re:Absolute crock of shit, this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prove intent? You must be living in a country that protects the rights of its citizens. That would not be the United States of America.

    3. Re:Absolute crock of shit, this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have to prove intent. Intent is presumed for any device that has "no lawful purpose."

      The construction is as follows:

      1) Driving is a privilege not a right, and so you must agree to all of the conditions the State sets forth, including agreement not to alter your vehicle to contain devices the State doesn't want you to have in your car

      2) You do not actually own your car. You have a certificate of Title from the State that grants you exclusive privilege to that property, in exchange for an annual fee paid to the state. But, it is not, at the end of the day, "your" car to do with what you please.

      3) Because it is not your car, and you have agreed to all of the state conditions for the privilege of driving, there can be no lawful purpose to having a secret compartment in your car.

      Therefore, because there is no lawful purpose, they can legally presume criminal intent.

    4. Re:Absolute crock of shit, this case by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Intent is only mentioned in relation to building or installing the hidden compartment. So either they can prove he built it, show evidence of drug residue, or show he's previously been found (or plead) guilty to drug charges, there is no case against him.

      The first is unlikely, but drug residue or prior convictions seem very plausible.

    5. Re:Absolute crock of shit, this case by tibit · · Score: 1

      You do not actually own your car. You have a certificate of Title from the State that grants you exclusive privilege to that property, in exchange for an annual fee paid to the state. But, it is not, at the end of the day, "your" car to do with what you please.

      What a load of bullshit. You don't pay recurring fees to maintain a title to a car, you dumbass. You only pay them to keep the car registered, and thus legal to drive. If you merely wish to own it without driving it, you pay the title fees once at the acquisition of the title and you're done. I hope you don't own a car in the U.S., because if you're confused about this, I wonder what else you're confused about. I hope you know what side of the road one drives on.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    6. Re:Absolute crock of shit, this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Behold some interesting bathroom reading

      Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1772042
      Oklahoma City University Law Review
      Summer, 2005
      30 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 245
      LENGTH: 12953 words
      CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile,
      1890-1950
      NAME: Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D.*
      BIO:
      * Dr. Roger Isaac Roots, J.D., Ph.D. is an attorney and sociologist in private practice.
      He can be reached at rogerroots@msn.com.
      SUMMARY: ... Driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of
      every jurisdiction of the United States. ... " "A traveler on foot [had] the same right to
      the use of any public highway [as the operator of] an automobile or any other vehicle. ... Chicago was one of the first large cities to require motor vehicle registration, and
      the Chicago Automobile Club voiced a strong protest against the requirement that
      numbered license plates be displayed, even though the city initially allowed motorists
      to select their own numbers and charged a fee of only $ 3 ... . Farson, however, never
      had the complete support of his club, and by 1904 he was representing only a small
      minority of the members. ... The State Legislature affirmatively provided that "any
      person owning or operating an automobile or motor vehicle ... [except for hire] shall
      not be required to obtain any license or permit pursuant to the provisions of any local
      or municipal resolution or ordinance. ... No court after 1920 found the right to travel
      sufficient to strike down a driver license requirement. ... Americans living during the
      turn of the twentieth century generally regarded highway travel as a fundamental
      right. ...
      HIGHLIGHT: Abstract
      Driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of
      every jurisdiction of the United States. However, this was not always the case. When
      automobiles were first introduced around the turn of the twentieth century, drivers
      relied on common law traditions that protected the right of every person to travel
      upon public roadways without a license. Courts repeatedly wrote of an individual's
      "right to travel" by automobile and struck down regulations aimed at limiting the
      liberties of automobile drivers on constitutional grounds. With the passage of time,
      however, automobile regulators generally prevailed in legislative halls and
      courtrooms. Today, the public has accepted a degree of travel regulation which would
      have seemed almost tyrannical to nineteenth century Americans. This paper analyzes
      this change in common law and suggests that even if most Americans are unaware of
      it, the change represents a substantial loss of liberty.
      Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1772042
      TEXT:
      [*245]
      I. Introduction
      Few historic events have brought as much change to the American landscape as the
      development of the automobile. n1 Indeed, American history can easily be written in
      two parts: America before the arrival of [*246] automobiles and America after
      automobiles. Motorized vehicles altered everything from the demographic distribution
      of American society to the ways Americans live and work to the normative balance of
      home and family life. n2
      Equally great are the changes the automobile brought to the American legal
      landscape. The automobile entered the scene during a unique period when America's
      culture of laissez-faire was being swept away by the instrumentalist lawmakers of the
      Progressive Era. n3 Law was seen as a weapon with which to wage war on social
      uncertainty, inequity, and insecurity. n4 The "hands-off" approach of earlier
      generations was seen as a barrier to sound public policy. n5 Highway safety, like food,
      drug, and workplace safety, was increasingly seen as the domain of g

    7. Re:Absolute crock of shit, this case by mattie_p · · Score: 1

      Unless you move, in which case you pay a title fee each time you move to a different state. I know this, as I've moved frequently for my job and always, always, always have to pay new title fees (and new title taxes, even if I've paid those taxes in the state, yeah).

    8. Re:Absolute crock of shit, this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, but you only need to transfer the title to the new state if you also want to register it in that state. You don't lose ownership of it just by failing to transfer the title when you move. You could leave it on the property of a friend or family, or in a rented space and it still belongs to you no matter where you are.

      Of course if you park it somewhere in violation of the law (parking laws and the like), they can fine you and eventually seize it, but it still belongs to you until it is seized. I don't think this is that much different from any other piece of property.

    9. Re:Absolute crock of shit, this case by camperdave · · Score: 1

      You only pay them to keep the car registered, and thus legal to drive.

      ... on public roads. I'm sure you could do all the driving you want on your own private property.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    10. Re:Absolute crock of shit, this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, this is only true if you intend to drive the car too. There is no reason why you need a title if you want the car for spare parts, motor sport, destruction derby, scrap, or just because you want a freaking car. Titles are only used to connect a car to a license plate. The title establishes the owner of the car, and the registration document establishes the registrant of the car. These may be two or more separate parties, so separate documents are needed. Also, titles are used to connect lien holders to vehicles in case the vehicle was paid for through a financing agent. You most certainly do own your car. Or at least that's what they tell you.

    11. Re:Absolute crock of shit, this case by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      TFA: "it also outlaws anybody who has been convicted of felony aggravated drug trafficking laws from operating any vehicle with hidden compartments. "

      I wonder about my truck in that case - it has a number of 'compartments', such as some trays 'hidden' underneath the rear seats, where the jack and such are and I've added some things like my first aid kit. They aren't big, but still enough to keep pounds of drugs if you wanted to.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  21. how to tell if you live in a police state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check to see if there are lots of laws whose only purpose is to make life easier for the police without any other reasonable purpose

  22. Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by Japher · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_SB_305
    (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.

    1. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe those with a hidden compartment would find it beneficial to have a copy of this statute in said compartment.

    2. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

      I think it is as bad as the article makes it out to be.

      They searched the car? Did the have a warrant? Probable cause? What was the probable cause? Wires to the trunk? The tail lights are in the trunk. Those need wires. Aftermarket speakers, amps, and alarm systems usually require wires running to the trunk. What is about wires that are so damning? Do these alleged secret drug compartments typically use their own climate control system or something? Even if they had probably cause, which it doesn't sound like, was there visible drug residue in the secret compartment? The officers may have asked if they could look in his car. If so, that would be the owner's own dumb fault for saying yes (never say yes), but I still don't see that holding up in court (IANAL).

      The article doesn't mention residue either, so that could have been withheld to sensationalize the piece, but I don't think it matters. The law is sensational enough as it is, and the ACLU is correct. There's already a law on the books against drug-trafficking. There's no reason to extend that to the type of container it may be found in.

      Also, this.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    3. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the cop has to do is say:

      "I smelled Marijuana" or "I saw a white powdery residue" and the standard is met. He doesn't have to be telling the truth, and has to collect no actual evidence of drugs. His word is good enough in any court of Law.

    4. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No residue? What story were you reading? It mentions that it reeked of pot; that + his priors is absolutely probable cause.

    5. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      >> securing valuables

      So doughnuts are ok?

    6. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Not in Massachusetts. We simultaneously have some of the most enlightened laws in the world and some of the stupidest.

    7. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      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.

      Which is one of the reasons laws like this are ridiculous. If they find "a controlled substance or visible residue" anywhere in your car, secret compartment or otherwise, then they can charge you with drug possession, so what's the point of this?

    8. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Random people don't install these compartments. If they get someone based on this law, it means they have someone with actual connections to the distributors that they're really after. Either they get a plea bargain where he gives up the people who hired him to transport the drugs, or other detailed information he may have. And, worse-case scenario, they just get someone for possession and have one less drug car on the road.

      Not saying it's perfect. Just that it's not nearly as dramatic or simplistic as you are making it out to be.

    9. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by weilawei · · Score: 1

      This is a form of the No-True-Scotsman fallacy. No True Scotsman would install these compartments, therefore if they arrest a Scotsman based on this law, it means they're not a True Scotsman.

    10. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      So toss a mp3 player, gold ring and $100 in $20's in there or something.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    11. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      So I better not keep my Vicodin in my laptop bag anymore. I should probably leave it on the dashboard just to show that I'm not trying to smuggle it anywhere. Sure, someone will see a prescription bottle and break into my car to steal it, but at least I'll be doing my part to keep controlled substances from doing the evil nefarious things they like to do when hidden from view.

      Sarcasm aside. I really DO like to hide my prescription medications in hard to access places, because I don't want people breaking into my car/house/etc to steal them. Same with my laptop. When I leave my laptop backpack in my car, I stick it in a storage area in my car so people on the outside don't look through the window and go 'Oh, free laptop.' The Vicodin is in the bag because it's my travel bag and I never want to be more than 15 minutes away from it as I get severe, crippling, headaches about once every 3 months. I got one once while on a train, and it was a horrific experience, so the prescription travels with me wherever I go.

    12. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      It reeked of pot. Big deal.

      Scents are not visible.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    13. Re:Read section (I) of the law for the whole story by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I really DO like to hide my prescription medications in hard to access places, because I don't want people breaking into my car[...]

      Don't keep your prescription meds in your car. A little time in the sun on summer days and your medications can degrade faster than normal. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/health/16consumer.html

  23. Arrested . . . but will he be charged? by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    Unless there is dope residue in the car, there is no way that any prosecutor would ever charge this because there is no way they could prove the intent element.

    Major constitutionality problems.

    1. Re:Arrested . . . but will he be charged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the article? The car was reeking with the stuff. Pretty sure they can find residue.

    2. Re:Arrested . . . but will he be charged? by weilawei · · Score: 1

      And, although it may be probable cause in Ohio, it is NOT probable cause elsewhere. Cops can lie, news at 11. (I have personally been illegally searched and detained for this sort of situation, and subsequently released, while being given a ticket for yet another thing I didn't do.)

    3. Re:Arrested . . . but will he be charged? by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Intent has nothing to do with it, despite the summary. According to the law, if he has any prior drug convictions, simply driving a car with one of these hidden compartments is all they need. Keep in mind, these aren't simple boxes hidden under a seat or something. They are complicated devices that are meant to be accessed only after specific toggles and switches (usually integrated into existing things like door locks and windshield wipers) are used in certain orders. From an engineering standpoint, these "traps" are actually pretty amazing, and the people who build them can make a lot of money doing so.

    4. Re:Arrested . . . but will he be charged? by Behrooz · · Score: 1

      Unless there is dope residue in the car, there is no way that any prosecutor would ever charge this because there is no way they could prove the intent element.

      Because the opportunity cost for the prosecutor to file charges is so high, and innocent people never plea-bargain to avoid the threat of trumped-up charges that could put them in jail for the rest of their life if the trial goes badly because their overworked public defender is unable to mount a successful defense.

      Prosecutors will happily charge anything that they think will work as leverage for a plea-bargain. That's their job, that's how the system works, and that's how all of the incentives are set up.

      --
      "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
    5. Re:Arrested . . . but will he be charged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? What would happen to the prosecutor if they couldn't prove intent?

  24. Same stupid thing by no-body · · Score: 1, Funny

    as all those stop signs on crossings where one can see traffic 1/2 mile each side.

    Which leads to the question how much fuel is wasted bringing all those huge masses of big cars to a full stop, then accelerating again - all just satisfying the rules....

  25. Interesting... by asmkm22 · · 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.

    1. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Punish them for who they are, not for a crime committed. You dark? You guilty used to be the motto.

    2. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter if you get convicted. Your life is already basically ruined by the arrest. Mission accomplished.

    3. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They said there was a high smell of raw MJ being emitted from the car so....
      Still, could have been cologne for all the knew....

    4. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ultimate cop out...I smelled/saw/heard the drugs that's why I burst through the door with probable cause. I'm highly trained you know.

  26. NBC Dateline did a story on similar Louisiana law by MmmmYah · · Score: 1

    Dateline did a story back in 1997 on the I-10 corridor in Louisiana. http://fear.org/tourist1.html

  27. Yes It's Tech... by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 1

    there were wires involved.

    --
    Sent from my ENIAC
  28. We don't need no steenking intent! by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    I didn't think intent mattered any more, it specifically does not in California.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    1. Re:We don't need no steenking intent! by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      The "intent" clause exists to ensure the law can't be used against people who can afford quality defence. Without it, people who matter might object to the law.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  29. In Amsterdam you cannot have an Achterhuis anymore by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Thugs with some Invasion Act in hand will come and get you.

  30. Beware of used cars, I guess. by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    You never know.

  31. Let us not stop here by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Let us not stop here by Zordak · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    2. Re:Let us not stop here by citizenr · · Score: 1

      you forgot about storing drugs in ones butt

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    3. Re:Let us not stop here by gagol · · Score: 1

      ...or criticize the government on Slashdot (or whatever this site devolved into in the last decade)

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    4. Re:Let us not stop here by gagol · · Score: 1

      Or inside the tyres, or the gas tank... those two should be outlawed too. Also hammers COULD be used to kill people, or any other tools for that matter.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    5. Re:Let us not stop here by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      But that is just not true. Everyone knowns pedos also use encryption.

    6. Re:Let us not stop here by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Being critical of a government is considered devolution? This country was founded on distrust of government.

    7. Re:Let us not stop here by howardd21 · · Score: 1

      And Pockets, don't forget to outlaw pockets! Poor Scottevest is now out of business, not only does he produce clothing with lots of pockets, he supports concealed carry. God bless Scott Jordan.

      --
      no comment
    8. Re:Let us not stop here by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      You can hide drugs in pants so...no pants?

    9. Re:Let us not stop here by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      NO MORE BUTTS!

  32. They've never met photographers, it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Many photographers have lock boxes for their expensive gear. Why? Well, you try walking around with three flashes and some stovepipe lenses all day long.

    1. Re:They've never met photographers, it seems by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Sure they do, and I own some rather expensive photographic gear, primarily my baby, a Canon zoom telephoto, which costs several times what any camera body I own does. But that's a lock box, it's not for drugs, and it isn't concealed. None of this is really applicable to the question at hand. Now, if the police arrested a photographer who didn't happen to have his gear in there, and the compartment was purposely built into the vehicle and concealed, then you might have something, but this law still talks about drugs and trafficking, or a convicted felon owning a car with a concealed compartment.

    2. Re:They've never met photographers, it seems by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Having a locked box on open display screams "I HAVE SOMETHING VALUABLE IN HERE WORTH STEALING"... It may make your goods slightly harder to steal, but it also makes it more likely that someone would want to steal them.
      If i regularly had valuables in my car i'd want to both lock them up and hide them from view.

      I also tend to leave compartments open when i leave the car, to show that there's nothing in them. I have had car windows smashed in the past by people who went looking through the various compartments (which were empty so they got nothing)...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:They've never met photographers, it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an excellent point, however, I don't leave valuables in my car, as all it takes to open it (I've done it repeatedly after locking myself out) is one of those squeegee things at the gas pump for washing your window. Stick it in, catch the handle, and turn. Takes 5 seconds on a bad day. (This IS my own vehicle, so I'm well within my legal rights here.) Friend of mine leaves the doors of his convertible unlocked so people wouldn't slash the top to get in, but he didn't leave valuables in his car either.

  33. Buy 4, get a 5th one free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I put that label on everything. It's meaningless your honor.

  34. Hate Crimes by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    From Wikipedia:

    "A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech."

    It's not so much about the abstract thought of hate, but that your hate motivated the crime in question. The reason for the stiffer penalties is to discourage the behavior or to lock up perpetrators longer. They came about in the American South because when one KKK guy lynched a black man it encouraged others to do it when they saw the 1st guy get away with it.

    Intent to Distribute is just a formal way of saying somebody had more pot than they could ever smoke.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Hate Crimes by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Intent to Distribute is just a formal way of saying somebody had more pot than they could ever smoke.

      Depends on the drug. At least with smoking pot I figure the stuff can go stale, so this is true. But what about processed cocaine? Pain medication?

      If I was addicted to pain pills(I'm not) such as oxycontin, I might consider trying to obtain a year's supply - a greater risk getting it home, once. After that I have my supply and don't have to worry about it anymore. But the law defines anything more than 6 pills(1 day supply) as intent to distribute....

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  35. Chamillionaire song stuck in my head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They see me rollin they hatin, patrolling they tryin to catch me ridin dirty

    So they get behind me tryin to check my tags, look at my rearview and they smilin
      Thinkin they'll catch me on the wrong well keep tryin
      Cause they denyin is racial profiling
      Lorian, OH you can check my tags
      Pull me over try to check my slab
      Glove compartment gotta get my cash
      Cause the crooked cops try to come up fast

    When they realize I ain't even ridin dirty bet you'll be leavin with an even madder mood
      I'mma laugh at you then I'mma have to cruise I'm in number two on some more DJ Screw
      You can't arrest me plus you can't sue
      This a message to the laws tellin them WE HATE YOU
      I can't be touched or tell 'em that they shoulda known

  36. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    INAL but when police search you for drugs and find none there not supposed to be able use anything else they found against you. That comes under illegal search.

  37. The guy screwed up big time by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    The guy got in trouble for not having any drugs in his secret compartment. Next time the guy will be smart and put some in there.

  38. Re:NBC Dateline did a story on similar Louisiana l by dale.furno · · Score: 0

    That link....

  39. Three Felonies a day became Four by Tokolosh · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  40. Arrested but he won't be convicted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the law states, for the purpose of concealing drugs. If no drug residue is found in the compartment, no case.

    Even though Obama doesn't follow the law, it won't fly for the littler turds and after ruining his life by financial ruin
    this worthless law will have no impact.

  41. Millenium Falcon by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

    Han: It's not mine, I'm holding for the wookie!
    Chewie: Rraaaaawwwrrrr!

  42. Not exactly a great idea for a legal defense... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    Once you talk about making extracts (hash, hash oil, etc.) from your pound of weed, you move from "possession with intent to distribute", to "manufacturing of a controlled substance", the same charge that running a meth lab would get you.

    Since you are now manufacturing, and not simply presumed to be selling, you move to the top of the food chain, and will make a great trophy for some ambitious narco-swine.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  43. Either not whole story or cops made mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (2) This section does not impose a duty on a licensed motor vehicle dealer to know, discover, report, repair, or disclose the existence of a hidden compartment to any person.

    (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.

    1. Re:Either not whole story or cops made mistake by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      The key is proper compliance. Just like when you can't keep a baseball bat in the front seat of your car, but if you have a baseball bat, ball, and glove all in the front seat of your car then it is OK.

  44. Screw Up Laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The laws are screwed up in a number of places, and often written solely to favor law enforcement.

    In Iowa, you can be arrested for public drunkenness with a 0.00 blood alcohol level, if you are perceived as being drunk. So, if you happen to have MS and walk in a drunken manner, you can be charged with public drunkenness.

  45. Isn't Ohio a Republican state? by HangingChad · · Score: 0

    I thought those GOP freedom fighters were the ones who don't like government interference? They want the government out of their lives...except for abortion, religion in public schools, and secret compartments in your car.

    Good thing we have a party that wants to keep the government out of our lives or things would really be messed up.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  46. Thought Crimes by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

    The planet Vulcan is the American future.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Thought Crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but without the people being logical part.

  47. Watch the video, the aggravating fact is by Pirulo · · Score: 1

    that the driver is black

    1. Re:Watch the video, the aggravating fact is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that aggravating? Why does the color of his skin matter at all?

    2. Re:Watch the video, the aggravating fact is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't fucking care.

      You motherfucking asshole, bringing race into the issue. Its not a fucking race issue, even if it is a race issue its not a race issue, its a fucking human rights issue you motherfucking asshole.

    3. Re:Watch the video, the aggravating fact is by ushere · · Score: 2

      are you serious? even in australia we know of racial profiling....

    4. Re:Watch the video, the aggravating fact is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does this have to do with anything? The GP assumes he was arrested because of his skin color. It is nothing more than that: an assumption.

      The arrest should have never taken place regardless of his skin color. If you are implying that it would be acceptable if he were white, you are literally too stupid to even understand the problem here.

  48. Governor will take care of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm certain Ohio's freedom loving Republican Governor will take care of things.

    Because the Republican's are all about freedom, I know, I heard it on Glenn Beck!

  49. wires? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? He made a "secret compartment" yet couldn't be bothered to hide the wires leading to said compartment?
    The stupidity is strong in thus one.

    1. Re:wires? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Different installers have different levels of ability. It's a bit like complaining that a $5 lock is easier to pick than a $100 one.

      I figure the wires were adequately concealed until the cops got an idea that a compartment might be there and went looking for more evidence, which included removing panels to see said wiring.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  50. 24 years in federal prison for building them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A fascinating and somewhat related article from Wired about a man that built some of these hidden compartments:

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/alfred-anaya/all/

  51. No, legal fees are not 'taken care of if you win'. by Behrooz · · Score: 4, 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.

    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.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  52. You Don't need more laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This law is supposed to defeat drug traffickers, however it will do nothing when the man is the one running the dope. Seriously the population with the greatest drug availability is the U.S. prison population. The only reason this can be is because the prison officials are profiting of the prison drug trade, and allowing it to occur. Similarly, the cops and big corporate interests are profiting off the U.S. drug trade that is why it is allowed to continue. They will arrest the stoners driving away with dope in their 74 pinto, but they will ignore the gang stars sellen the dope. If there is a war on drugs why don't we have the CIA launching hellfire missiles into crack houses from predator drones. The reason is we don't have a war. We have a cartel. Just like DeBeers controls the scarcity of diamonds the U.S. governments limits the supply of drugs to keep prices and profits high. The U.S. government controls and profits from the numbers racket (lottery), the drug and alcohol trade, cigarettes, and guns.

    Fuck the law, and the corporate interests that control the U.S. If your kids get hooked on drugs thank a cop. If you don't want your kids hooked on drugs then kill the faggot selling drugs on the corner. The cops will try to arrest you, but at least your kids will have a future.

    1. Re:You Don't need more laws by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      You may doubt, but I can guarantee that the CIA intervenes with the global narcotics trade:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking

    2. Re:You Don't need more laws by edibobb · · Score: 2

      That would explain the record crops of opium in Afghanistan.

  53. They could have fun with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. Imagine if his defense lawyer would argue that this was, in fact, a secret compartment, meant to smuggle unicorns into Ohio. Offer to plead guilty to attempted unicorn-trafficking but deny the drug charges.

  54. According to laws like these.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The book of Mormon would be illegal.

  55. What bunch of howling idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... moderated the parent post to +5, Insightful?

  56. I welcome the end of the USA by evanism · · Score: 0

    There will be a day, hopefully very soon, where I no longer have the "news" of the USA shown to me.

    Whether this is by filter, a firefox plugin or simply from the fact the entire county has imploded financially or due to stupendous idiocy - it matters not.

    I am tired of seeing stupid stories like this and the incessant barking of either the "left" or the "right" as to the right/wrong of the latest endemic self created stupidity.

    I am tired of the unrelenting hate, the spite, the fear mongering, the insults, intolerance, racism, loathing and viciousness that spews out. Build a GIANT WALL and imprison yourselves. Let the rest of the world enjoy ourselves.

    --
    Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    1. Re:I welcome the end of the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be a day, hopefully very soon, where I no longer have the "news" of the USA shown to me.

      You *could* try not visiting US-centric websites like /., I hear that helps with your 'problem'.

    2. Re:I welcome the end of the USA by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I am tired of the unrelenting hate, the spite... the insults, intolerance,... loathing and viciousness that spews out.

      I love the smell of hypocritical irony in the morning. It smells like the grass in a cow pasture.

  57. Hide-a-key by BenJeremy · · Score: 2

    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.

  58. Watch your coats, secret pockets are next! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a fan of secret anything. Secret pockets, secret compartments, secret secondary basement etc... The government is allowed secrets, why not us? They should fear us even if we pretend we have things that we don't really have. What bothers me is how big brothers is becoming more and more intrusive. They now can barge into your house without a warrant, they can give you a cavity search whenever they damn well please and if you don't like it they can throw you into a detainment camp (or kill you). They are logging every damn thing that's going on, on the internet, radio etc... Cameras are being installed on every intersection (at least here), and you're not guilty of thinking of a crime, not actually committing it. So if you posturize a scenario in your head, even if you say it's for a script, if they don't like you, they will prosecute you for your "thought crimes" as long as you admit to them. But of course, thought crimes can be as simple as posting on facebook and them using an algorithm to figure out whom are threats, since well... The IRS fiasco against conservatives/libertarians was proven to be true. Medical records are now going to be used against you as well with obamacare whom are centralizing everything and new laws such as gun bans are being put into place for people that have recorded anxiety issues and such. Everyone has anxiety issues!

    So sorry for wanting one little thing that can be considered privacy Mr. Government but that's how it is. We don't want your nose in our business and we don't buy the whole war on drugs thing, war on terrorists, or war on pedophiles either. They are all labels that you use to pass undesirable laws, but now people like me are considered an undesirable since I'm quite loud with my voice and that's a crime in your agenda. Sorry, but every time I hear "think of the children" I think about how great children would be at being politicians compared to you scums that use children, drugs, and fabricated truths to get what you want. Get over yourselves, the majority of the US is waking up. More and more people will be getting secret compartments from now on whether it's because they want to have some privacy or they are taking part of the new rise in the blackmarket thanks to your shitty administration. Yes, I will say this quite clearly. Obama's administration has destroyed the country in a way that it can no longer be reversed even if you have a libertarian in charge that reduces government overhead by 90%. There is absolutely nothing that can be done and we all have to wait it out until foreign nations get tired of us taking out loans. We cannot pay our debt, and there's no way around it besides forfeiting the nation to a bigger one, willing to tackle our debt.

    I know it's a rant that's partially irrelevant but it's relevant to the fact that the government have gone way out of line and even the police aren't there for the people anymore.

  59. what a dumb ass by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    All you have to do is fill the compartment with tools, blankets, water, and similar emergency materials. If you get pulled over and they find your "compartment" you're clearly not intending it for drug use, because it's clearly IN USE for legitimate purposes. The compartment is one thing, but intent is another, and intending to keep emergency materials at hand in a car is actually a GOOD THING, and having a compartment for it means you're not sacrificing trunk space.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  60. It's still total bullshit by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, 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 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.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re:It's still total bullshit by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      It's not a huge drag on the economy, it's what our economy is based on.

    2. Re:It's still total bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It won't stop until the victims - such as those poor people in raped in the CNN article you linked - finally stand up and say NO. NO MORE.
      Yes, that means fighting back.
      Yes, that possibly means bloodshed.
      Yes, that possibly means civil war.
      How do you want this to go, America? Free country or a land of chained slaves?
      Your choice. You can be "safe" or you can be free.
      Choose wisely, please.

  61. Prison lobbies by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Not to diss your points, but I feel the need to point out that in places without private prisons you still generally have a lobby pressing for much the same thing in the form of the lobby of the prison guard union.

    As for Ohio's contract, I'd love to see the officials who signed the contract fined and fired for exceeding their authority, and the contract ruled null and invalid due to containing invalid clauses.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  62. Intent? by hduff · · Score: 1

    How will they establish "intent".

    Does merely having a compartment establish the intent?

    Usually, such circular logic does not hold up well in highre courts.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  63. Vacation Pictures by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    Hey, we just the prints of your vacation pictures. You can come pick them up any time.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Vacation Pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I think you a word there.

  64. Stupid shit like this is why I don't own a gun. by Chas · · Score: 0

    The urge to start killing dumbfucks and purging the stupid from the gene pool is as overwhelming as it is constant.

    The better part of me says "this is not the way"...until nobody's looking, then it just nods and mutters that, actually, it is, but it's still figuring out a way to maximize the impact once the dumbfucks catch wind of it and hunt me down.

    We keep getting these jackasses shooting up schools and QuickeeMarts. They're just too dumb to understand who the REAL enemies are.

    Oh! Too soon?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  65. Just start killing all the cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck it. If they're gonna shit all over the constitution might as well just put a bullet in their pig heads.

  66. Secret stash of bitcoins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The compartment was loaded with bitcoins. Once they pushed the button to open the door, poof went the wallet.

  67. Ha! "Public safety" by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

    > Given this is the first arrest, you have to wonder how
    > the courts might view a law making it a felony to alter
    > a person's own property for reasons that have
    > nothing to do with actual public safety.

    Some fairly massive parts of the vehicle and traffic codes have nothing at all to do with public safety; and are often even counterproductive to public safety and even the environment (Window tint laws, for example.). They're just there to give the cops a way to raise revenue by writing tickets or as an excuse to pull you over if they decide they don't like the looks of you.

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  68. Re:NBC Dateline did a story on similar Louisiana l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does stuff like that continue? If a cop did that to me I'd kill him and his family. Would take a few years of planning but worth it. How can the abuse so many people like such animals and nobody puts them down?

  69. Modify haversack = shoplifting? by liwee · · Score: 1

    If I modify my haversack to include a secret compartment and carry it into wal mart, would I be facing charges of shoplifting?

  70. I better not drive my Tesla in Ohio by AaronW · · Score: 1

    All I have to do is open the hood and I'd be arrested for the "frunk" storage area. Some people look at me strange when I open the hood to put in groceries and whatnot rather than the rear trunk. It's easier for me to take the groceries out of the front in my garage.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  71. Re:No, legal fees are not 'taken care of if you wi by adolf · · Score: 1

    I think I agree with you, but I might be missing the point.

    Was I missing a "because, Free Market" in there, or "because, Corruption," or a "because, Constitution" somewhere?

  72. Re:No, legal fees are not 'taken care of if you wi by sjames · · Score: 1

    In some states you can't even get the overworked and underpaid public defender at all unless you are indigent. The courts won't concern themselves with such petty matters as innocent people being rendered homeless or unemployed. It is, after all, the just us system.

  73. Don't come from Holland by shikaisi · · Score: 1

    I can well remember about 20 years ago I drove from Holland to England by way of the Channel Tunnel in a large rental van I had hired to pick up a suite of furniture that my in-laws in England had generously said they would to give to me. The French Customs stopped me at the entrance to the tunnel and asked me what I was transporting in the van, to which I innocently replied "Nothing". They took a look at the empty van. Next thing I knew there were about 14 gendarmes inside and outside the van going over the vehicle inch by inch knocking on every panel to find the secret compartment. It was good half an hour before they gave up trying to find the non-existent drugs. The air of mystification on their faces was a joy to behold when they let me go. I swear some of them still believed I must have filled the back of the van with drugs in gaseous form.

    --
    No left turn unstoned.
  74. Yes, he also kept people as property by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Jefferson is a hypocrite who talked about opposing the slave trade while keeping slaves. Compared to him ANY modern legislator is an icon of virtue.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

    He also opposed the practice of slave masters freeing their own slaves as he believed this made slave uprisings more likely.

    This is your example of liberty?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  75. just right for a pizza, box included. (Sqore:6) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looked at the jeep cherokee recently and was surprised how insistent that the sales
    person made absolutely sure I knew about the secret compartment under the front
    passenger seat. It's definitely drug related because it's sized just right for a pizza,
    box included.

    Seriously, this is Ohio - where possession of a single j***t will result in a life sentence.

    People have to remember to insist on a trial by jury for even the minor-ist of offences.

    Jury trial in the U.S. are unique in the world - no other country has them (some in name
    only); the founders understood that power corrupts absolutely which is why there are
    four branches of the government - yes, a jury is the forth branch of the government.

    CAPTCHA = 'swords'

  76. blah by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 1

    He must have had a shitty lawyer. The intent to commit a crime is usually pretty hard to prove, despite the millions of comments to the contrary above. If they proved that, maybe he really did have intent or maybe he had a public defender that abdicated immediately.

    --
    Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
  77. This is the real danger by fuzzyf · · Score: 1

    "Then again, we have another law that lets women go topless on hot days."

    You need a law that let you do things?
    That is scary.

    1. Re:This is the real danger by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      "Then again, we have another law that lets women go topless on hot days." You need a law that let you do things? That is scary.

      In most places, a topless woman would be classified as "indecent exposure", except in cases of breast feeding.

    2. Re:This is the real danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly is "indecent" about it? Why isn't it considered indecent if a man exposes his nipples?

    3. Re:This is the real danger by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

      In most places, in the English-speaking world a topless woman would be classified as "indecent exposure", except in cases of breast feeding.

      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.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    4. Re: This is the real danger by locke.th · · Score: 1

      Because the male breast isn't considered sexual like a woman's breast is. That's the long and short of it; if you want that changed, you'll have to change the way most societies think.

    5. Re:This is the real danger by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      I cannot believe people like you still exist....Welcome to the enlightened age. You're only about 200 years late...

      "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."

      Sorry. You're in public. No-one is under any obligation to keep you free from annoyance.

      Kids squak, rant, tanturm, and carry on all kinds of unholy hell. That's what *you* get for going out in *public*.

      Sometimes, parents actually needs to get some shopping done, even if the child believes it must have the red shiny or die screaming about it.

      Laws don't exist to make you feel comfortable and free from annoyance.

      (There are a whole heck of a lot of names and vulgarities I refrained from using in this post. It required an inordinate amount of restraint. I am almost certain you won't appreciate that.)

    6. Re: This is the real danger by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Tough shit on the parents. THEY should have tied a knot in THEIR relevant tubes if THEY didn't have the wherewithall to properly look after THEIR choice until it was old enough to look after itself. And yes, that does mean that if they can't afford a sprog, they shouldn't breed.

      (Yes, I do have enough money to do that. No, I don't have children and yes, I tied knots in the relevant tubes almost a decade before I met my wife, and no, she hasn't given up on persuading me to besprog with her. So don't worry, I will think of you and of stealing money from your pocket if I let her persuade me to untie.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    7. Re: This is the real danger by msim · · Score: 1

      Firstly I'll agree with you on one thing, some people whom are parents, SHOULDN"T be. Unfortunately parental licensing or beating the dickheadedness out of someone are both things that aren't legal anywhere I know of. Just because some people are hopeless at being alive (and consequently being parents) doesn't mean that everyone should be tarred with the same brush. Some of us actually TRY to be good parents and try to lead by example to our children as opposed to just auto-piloting through and hoping things turn out ok on the other side..

      Sometimes no matter what you do to guide or educate your children and how well behaved a child is otherwise, a kid is just going to off the deep end and just make a God awful racket regardless of where they are and you can't do a damn thing about it. That is aside from trying to parent that behaviour out of them, either at the time or afterwards. While all this is going on you still have to live a day to day life, you can't exactly go locking kids in the basement (a-la Fritzl) until they are old enough to not be an inconvenience to others.

      All I can say is thank-you for not contributing to the gene pool.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    8. Re: This is the real danger by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      *laughs*

      Oh, you're joking. I get it. You're playing the idiot.

      I mean, your act here couldn't possibly *be* more the stereotypical non-parent... Spouting elitist garbage, acting like you know so much better than actual parents...regarding something about which you pretend to have *zero* experience or practical knowledge...

      Clever. You almost had me. For a moment I thought there was actually someone out there that was still this incredibly stupid.

    9. Re: This is the real danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a parent, and I'm getting pretty fed up with how some parents make us look stupid by using ad hominems every two seconds. Either respond to their actual arguments or don't bother. Pointing out the fact that they aren't parents is utterly useless.

    10. Re: This is the real danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....I'm sure if there was some legitimate argument to reply to...

    11. Re: This is the real danger by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I sincerely hope to be able to beat you into submission - or at least into covering your own costs - using a ballot box. But you'll probably sprog up some more votes and try to take over again. Asshole.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    12. Re: This is the real danger by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      So....you don't want to be a part of this society?

      Aww...see? Who said we couldn't find common ground? More power to ya! Good luck in the wilderness where you won't be required to help support any society. Be sure to let us know how that works out for ya someday.

  78. gateway laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America's drug laws became gateways laws for a complete Nazi style fascist police state.

  79. The law should be for everyone by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's not good either. Just because you don't like someone's perfectly legal job is no excuse to make them an outlaw that the State can just steal from without consequence. A government agency should have to show beyond reasonable doubt that money is proceeds of crime before taking it away like that.

    1. Re:The law should be for everyone by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      There was a Cops episode where a good ol' boy pulled over a Mexican family, found $8000 in cash in a tire, and let them go, keeping the money as drug money.

      Congresscritters stamped their little fists and said they'd do something about this, require proof of a crime, and charges, and so on.

      I'm guessing that went nowhere and local police can continue in their traditional role as highway robbers?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:The law should be for everyone by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Judging by all the cops on I-40 in TN who sit on the money side rather than the drug side, yup.

    3. Re:The law should be for everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this is America after all. We've had an illegal drug war for 100 years now that has done nothing but make drugs ultra popular. All of our currency has passed through a cartel at one time or another.

  80. Arrest Ford! by Drethon · · Score: 1

    Their 95 Taurus wagon (and others too I suspect) have "hidden" storage for both a normal and full size spare tire. No one needs the use of both so one of those is obviously used to smuggle drugs!

  81. Re:No, legal fees are not 'taken care of if you wi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    You may only choose to use a public defender if you can demonstrate that your income is below 125% (varies by state) of the poverty level (ie, $14k for single, $30k family-of-4). Most states will also make you document lack of savings before letting you coast through on one of those overworked, underfunded "free" lawyers.

  82. Love the reporter's opening line: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Criminals and drug dealers are using the same roads you use every day" - pray for us now....

  83. Ohio's Polluted Rivers Lakes and Streams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ohio should really be arresting everyone who is now and also has been polluting every lake, river and stream for decades as part of their every day normal commerce in this awful state.

  84. Hmmm ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    ... it sounds like, "I have it to conceal poached game", might be a successful defense.

  85. & God help you if you RECITE it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/18/1027775/-TSA-Arrests-Me-for-Using-the-Fourth-Amendment-as-a-Weapon-Tales-from-the-Edge-of-a-Revolution-2#

    http://www.infowars.com/new-jersey-woman-arrested-for-reciting-constitution-at-tax-meeting/

    apparently cops consider the 4th amendment to be roughly equivalent to yelling "ALLAHU AKBAR!!!"

  86. Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unconstitutional is the least you can say about this arrest....that is all.

  87. Everyone Here is Missing the Real Problem by pscottdv · · Score: 1

    The real problem is this country's insane War on Drugs. The logic for it is truly perverse:

    1. People who use drugs are often willing to commit crimes to feed their habit such as theft and robbery.
    2. Therefore, we'll clamp down people selling drugs.
    3. But people who exhibit behavior X tend to be drug dealers so we'll clamp down on behavior X.
    4. But people who exhibit behavior Y tend to exhibit behavior X so we'll clamp down on behavior Y.
    5. None of this is working, so we'll use SWAT teams and Dogs and Really Harsh Sentencing for people who exhibit behavior Y.

    Meanwhile, when someone steals from me or robs me the cops tell me, "There really isn't much we can do about it so I hope you have insurance. We are much to busy catching drug dealers to worry about minor crimes like this."

    --

    this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

  88. Wait, I'm confused..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like he got busted for having a secret compartment full of nothing. But doesn't that mean that nothing is illegal? And that implies that everything is legal. Therefore, the state must release him forthwith. Ha! Hoisted on their own petard! For my next trick I shall prove that Alexander the Great never existed and that he had an infinite number of limbs.

  89. Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just searched through the entire Ohio Revised Code and did not find a single reference to "trap car" anyplace.

    What the story did not cover (half baked), is the prior history of the driver. Did he/she have any prior drug traficking related convictions? If so, then it's technically a valid arrest (although I think the code should not exist). But if he does not, then it's case of false arrest, and the jury and/or judge need to do their duty and find him innocent.

  90. Old joke about having "instruments of rape" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like the old joke about being jailed for having "instruments of rape"

  91. should have never been charged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    they would have to prove state of mind(mens rea). this is hard to do unless they wiretapped him saying he was going to pick up a kilo. the state/officer must be under the assumption that hidden compartments can only be used for controlled substances.

    "(C) 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."

    "(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."

    I would demand a jury trial asap.

  92. And if you carried it in your hand by Marrow · · Score: 1

    you would be arrested for brandishing the weapon, right?

  93. Pavlov's Bell of Law Enforcement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this like Pavlov's Dogs? Instead of ringing a bell, its approaching a car, and instead of salivating, its the smell of marijuana?

  94. good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good luck proving intent, even a retarded jury should be able to see what's going on here

  95. Norman Gurley Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=138271836246162&id=100001900386765&set=a.101984716541541.3177.100001900386765&source=42&__user=100001920476177

  96. Compartment with Wires? by trongey · · Score: 1

    They found a compartment with wires running into it. You mean like the empty CD Changer compartment in my wife's old Mazda?
    No trips to Ohio for me.

    --
    You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  97. Intent by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    He might have been arrested, but how is the court going to prove he intended to put drugs there?

  98. REALLY!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arrested for having AIR in his secret compartment?? OMGoodness! Next, I*ll probably get arrested for having AIR in my head :( How strange??

  99. Where has my freedom gone? by Palito · · Score: 1

    My car was broken into a year ago and ever sense then I have created a secret compartment to put all my valuable. No drugs or weapons just my wallet and cellphone for when I go mountain biking. I hate to live in a world were we are always guilty.

  100. "Intent" being the key word by jbee02 · · Score: 1

    Unless they can prove beyond reasonable doubt he intended to use it, he is going to walk

  101. Arrested for driving a used car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if you bought a used car that, at one time, had been used to smuggle drugs?

    You would have no idea the compartment even existed, let alone have the intent to smuggle drugs in it.

    Of course the cops just want to fill out the jails so your innocence wouldn't matter to them.

    God bless merka.

  102. You might be packing a load. by RAVEN2 · · Score: 1

    Don't pucker up your hieney. It may be considered a hidden compartment.

  103. Re:No, legal fees are not 'taken care of if you wi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Public defender can cost you money, too. They aren't necessarily pro bono. In at least some jurisdictions, there is a means test to determine if/how much you should pay for the services of the public defender.