• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Secret Compartment in auto ILLEGAL - man arrested

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Police state in Ohio? Really?

Man arrested for having empty compartment in car
In what has been called a further erosion of the Fourth Amendment, civil libertarian groups are blasting a recent arrest by Ohio police of a driver who had a compartment in his car that could possibly be used to store drugs, despite no drugs being found.

The arrest occurred when an officer with the Ohio Highway Patrol pulled over Norman Gurley, 30, of Michigan for speeding. During the stop, the officer noticed wires that ran to a secret compartment in the car and thus made the arrest.

The law states:

“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.”

The Highway Patrol is defending the arrest.

“Without the hidden compartment law, we would not have had any charges on the suspect,” says Lt. Michael Combs, a spokesman for the Highway Patrol.

John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said the police explanation is disturbing and shows how the Fourth Amendment continues to be chipped away.

“Although Norman Gurley had no drugs on his person, nor in his car, nor could it be proven that he intended to conceal drugs, he was still arrested for the ‘crime’ of having a hidden compartment in the trunk of his car,” Whitehead wrote. “This is what a world without the Fourth Amendment looks like.

Good thing handguns are not controlled substances.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
So the citizen was charged with speeding and possessing an empty hidden compartment in the vehicle...

Please tell me that the Ohio Highway Patrol can drum up something a little more sophisticated then an "Empty Hidden Compartment"

Do they have no shame in how they spend tax payer dollars on their so called war on drugs??

The 4th is indeed on life support...

Sad, Sad, Sad..

My .02

Best regards

CCJ
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I think calling this a Fourth Amendment issue is a losing argument. Its too easy for a court to say that the driver-owner is presumed to know the compartment exists. And, since secret compartments are a common tactic of drug runners, its probable that a secret compartment is/was/will be used for drug transport, thus probable cause is satisfied.

The article even faults police for not being able to prove the compartment was intended to transport drugs. Wrong standard. Proof is for trial. Probable cause does not require proof, merely that its probable.

I'd go for whichever constitutional right is violated by the statute itself. Equal protection, due process, vagueness leading to too much latitude for police, no enumerated power to prohibit secret compartments--whichever best attacks the statute.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
It's gonna be kinda hard to prove the knowledge that the law requires as an element of the crime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

The law also requires there to be illegal drugs or residue of said drugs in the compartment. The cops royally screwed on this one!
 

CT Barfly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
328
Location
Ffld co.
Bad charge unless the police had some other suspicion relating to drug trafficking. As a stand-alone charge, it's going to be pretty tough to prove.

Based on the facts contained in this thread, I don't see a jury concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy was into drug trafficking...in fact, a judge would be obligated to dismiss the charge absent evidence of such "intent."

So, this is either a wild overcharge or the police have the intent evidence (perhaps a prior bust? known drug-offender status?)

Citizen, I do not agree that a police officer observing ONLY AN EMPTY HIDDEN COMPARTMENT can refer to his "past experience and knowledge" with such compartments in order to meet even the probable cause standard. It's not even reasonable suspicion if you ask me. Police officers don't get to presume criminality when they are faced with one single element of a multi-element violation when that single element is lawful by itself...think about what that means for OPEN CARRY!!!!!!

This is similar to U.S. v. Black...when something is legal, an officer doesn't get to presume illegality just because it isn't common. If it's legal, it's legal. The compartment is only illegal when intended for use in drug trafficking...this is an add-on charge that should be leveled only at drug dealers and people who admit or otherwise exhibit the required intent.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Bad charge unless the police had some other suspicion relating to drug trafficking. As a stand-alone charge, it's going to be pretty tough to prove.

Based on the facts contained in this thread, I don't see a jury concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy was into drug trafficking...in fact, a judge would be obligated to dismiss the charge absent evidence of such "intent."

So, this is either a wild overcharge or the police have the intent evidence (perhaps a prior bust? known drug-offender status?)

Citizen, I do not agree that a police officer observing ONLY AN EMPTY HIDDEN COMPARTMENT can refer to his "past experience and knowledge" with such compartments in order to meet even the probable cause standard. It's not even reasonable suspicion if you ask me. Police officers don't get to presume criminality when they are faced with one single element of a multi-element violation when that single element is lawful by itself...think about what that means for OPEN CARRY!!!!!!

This is similar to U.S. v. Black...when something is legal, an officer doesn't get to presume illegality just because it isn't common. If it's legal, it's legal. The compartment is only illegal when intended for use in drug trafficking...this is an add-on charge that should be leveled only at drug dealers and people who admit or otherwise exhibit the required intent.

I'm not talking about police--I'm talking about the courts. Based on my reading of appellate decisions on FourthAmendment.com for several years, I'm thinking its within easy reach for a court to conclude the two things I stated above: 1) the court can just presume the driver-owner knew about the compartment, and 2) secret compartments are a known tactic of drug runners. I'm not saying that its right. I'm saying that trying to argue a 4A violation is too easy to lose.

For all we know, the statute was intended as an add-on charge for a drug-runner caught using a secret compartment. As in, cop discovers a secret compartment (a lot more common than you might think). Now (if I recall) he has probable cause to search that compartment just based on drug-runners using secret compartments. The more I think about it, the more I suspect this statute was written to additionally penalize secret-compartment drug runners, and the police are misusing it.
 

J1MB0B

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
239
Location
Tacoma, Washington
I think calling this a Fourth Amendment issue is a losing argument. Its too easy for a court to say that the driver-owner is presumed to know the compartment exists. And, since secret compartments are a common tactic of drug runners, its probable that a secret compartment is/was/will be used for drug transport, thus probable cause is satisfied.

The article even faults police for not being able to prove the compartment was intended to transport drugs. Wrong standard. Proof is for trial. Probable cause does not require proof, merely that its probable.

I'd go for whichever constitutional right is violated by the statute itself. Equal protection, due process, vagueness leading to too much latitude for police, no enumerated power to prohibit secret compartments--whichever best attacks the statute.

Well by that logic...
Its too easy for a court to say that the driver-owner is presumed to know the firearm exists. And, since firearms are a common tactic of bank robbers, its probable that a firearm is/was/will be used to rob a bank, thus probable cause is satisfied.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
C'Mon man!!!
Norman Gurley, 30, of Michigan
This will get tossed on appeal, quick like a bunny, if it even get that far. Else the DA will have that idiotic law tossed just like the FOID card law for outta staters was in IL. The law applies to OH residents (vehicles). If the vehicle is not registered in OH it can not be applied to a MI vehicle.

Now, does MI have a "secret compartment" law?

That state cop is a nitwit and a anti-citizen thug.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
What about a hidden and securely fastened gun safe? That is a "secret compartment" and guns in OH, in a car, seem to be a "controlled substance." OH is not looking real competent right now.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
If the officer spotted it from the window during a traffic stop, it's clearly not a hidden compartment at all!!!
 

golddigger14s

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,068
Location
Lawton, OK USA
What about all the "secret" storage compartment that come factory installed? My Subaru has enough hidey holes for a ton of stuff.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
What about all the "secret" storage compartment that come factory installed? My Subaru has enough hidey holes for a ton of stuff.

It only implies to compartments that are "manufactured". In this case the officer smelled marijuana and found that one of the occupants had marijuana in his person. Based on the PC to search the vehicle, they found some aftermarket wires going to an area. They were able to figure out that it was a drug compartment.

Listen guys don't put a secret compartment that requires very specific methods to open (turn signal lights in a series or radio knobs or some other switch in sequence) to store a gallon of milk. Its one of those things only used by drug smugglers.

I'd bet quite a lot that these guys have a bit of history with drugs before.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Link works; Aston Martin Illegal?

Sorry about the missing link (no pun intended).

So, I was wondering, would Bond's Aston Martin be illegal? The original one had secret compartments, machine guns, oil slick tubes, passenger ejection (my favorite!) and other neat tools.

The statists simply hate us when we choose to be self-reliant.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Again, this "bust" will be tossed if the charge is for the "secret compartment." It appears that the bust is only for the single compartment. The leaps of il-logic that the cop quoted makes. "He was obviously between runs." Well, me OCing is obviously me on the way to or from a mass shooting. Sheeze.

The story plainly states that no drugs were found in the car or on the citizen. There are no lows you will not strive to achieve in the defense of the indefensible where nitwit cops are concerned. You must even lie to support the cops where they deserve no support.

The OH law can not be applied to a vehicle not registered in OH. Just as the FOID law can not be applied non-IL citizens.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Again, this "bust" will be tossed if the charge is for the "secret compartment." It appears that the bust is only for the single compartment. The leaps of il-logic that the cop quoted makes. "He was obviously between runs." Well, me OCing is obviously me on the way to or from a mass shooting. Sheeze.

The story plainly states that no drugs were found in the car or on the citizen. There are no lows you will not strive to achieve in the defense of the indefensible where nitwit cops are concerned. You must even lie to support the cops where they deserve no support.

The OH law can not be applied to a vehicle not registered in OH. Just as the FOID law can not be applied non-IL citizens.

“Although Norman Gurley had no drugs on his person, nor in his car, nor could it be proven that he intended to conceal drugs, he was still arrested for the ‘crime’ of having a hidden compartment in the trunk of his car,” Whitehead wrote. This is what a world without the Fourth Amendment looks like.
But all of the above matters not to nitwit cops.....nor Primus. Facts are not needed.

I hope the "perp" gets a good lawyer and has this law tossed out as unconstitutional. Or, at a minimum, sue the cops for a violation of a MI residents 4A right.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
If no drugs were found, how can they prove the required knowledge of the compartment being for contraband?
The justification:

“Without the hidden compartment law, we would not have had any charges on the suspect,” says Lt. Michael Combs, a spokesman for the Highway Patrol. “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.”
I like the "I smelled weed" to manufacture the PC for the arrest and subsequent search of the vehicle. What happened to the "smelled weed" component of this "case?"

It seems a first year law student will be able to defend this citizen from a false arrest and malicious prosecution, if a prosecution is pursued.
 
Top