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.
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 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?
"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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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!