• 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

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Again, nothing comes close to proving the knowledge which is clearly an element of the crime. The "smelling" of weed may be used to manufacture PC, but a hell of a lot more than PC is needed to convict.

As someone mentioned, this law was likely designed as an add-on charge. The problem is that these add-on laws often become primary laws. If it can't (or needn't) be a primary law, it shouldn't exist as its existence will almost always be misused--as appears to be the case here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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

"Criminalize perfectly legitimate behavior or constructions because typically they are used for or associated with illicit purposes. Sacrifice just a little more liberty so that the police may have just one more tool with which to wage the drug war."

No.

If you accept that premise - that it's ok to criminalize neutral/legitimate acts or constructs because they're usually only used for illicit purposes - the tyranny that ensues will know no bounds. They already seize property for the sole reason that it was used in relation to some sort of "drug operation" (even if it's really just possession). What's next? Outlawing the wearing of pants with pockets by those convicted on drug charges, because they might use those pockets to hide some pot from plain view? You think that because something may be related to the drug offense, the offender should be penalized for it as well? For many drug offenders, their entire lives are wrapped up in the use of drugs. You might as well seize everything they own, and completely enslave them. That is what the premise would allow, should you accept it. No, you won't admit to it, though. You will try to split hairs. Ultimately, what your argument will rest upon is the supposed benevolence of those in authority. I don't accept that your trust of them or the system is legitimate justification for the overruling of the rights of citizens.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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.


Man Arrested For Having Concealed Compartment in Vehicle
December 27, 2013 - 12:22 PM

By Eric Scheiner
Subscribe to Eric Scheiner RSS
Follow Eric Scheiner on Twitter
91.3K 68
A man was arrested in Ohio for having a hidden compartment in a vehicle and could face up to 18 months in prison, even though there was nothing in the compartment.

Just days before Thanksgiving, 30- year old Norman Gurley was pulled over for speeding, but Ohio State Troopers noticed wires running to the back of the car he was driving.

“During the search, they noticed some components inside the vehicle that did not appear to be factory,” Lt. Michael Combs told WKYC-TV.

"We actually figured it out and followed the wiring and we were able to get it open," said Combs.



There were no illegal drugs or weapons in the compartment, but Gurley became the first person arrested under the state’s “hidden compartment” law.

The Ohio law passed last year prohibits, “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.”

This law makes driving a car with a concealed compartment intended to carry a controlled substance a felony.

Troopers reportedly noticed an overwhelming smell of marijuana, which gave them probable cause to search the vehicle and led to the discovery of the compartment.

The arrest has given voice to those critical to the law, who claim that just having a hidden space in a vehicle shouldn’t be considered a crime.

The ACLU of Ohio had been opposed to the measure. A statement on the ACLU website says, “The ACLU of Ohio believes SB 305 is an unnecessary and unproductive expansion of law. Drug trafficking is already prohibited under Ohio law, so there is no use for shifting the focus to the container.”

Reason.com reports that Gurley’s lawyer, Myron Watson, claims that Gurley has no criminal record and the vehicle he was driving was a friend’s and that Gurley had no knowledge of the compartment.

A passenger in the vehicle was found in possession of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/eric-scheiner/man-arrested-having-concealed-compartment-vehicle

Do I get an apology now? Since you accused me of lying?
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Again, nothing comes close to proving the knowledge which is clearly an element of the crime. The "smelling" of weed may be used to manufacture PC, but a hell of a lot more than PC is needed to convict.

As someone mentioned, this law was likely designed as an add-on charge. The problem is that these add-on laws often become primary laws. If it can't (or needn't) be a primary law, it shouldn't exist as its existence will almost always be misused--as appears to be the case here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

So...if you wanted to have a secret compartment to hide personal papers from the government, it would be ok? Sure hope so! ;)
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Man Arrested For Having Concealed Compartment in Vehicle
December 27, 2013 - 12:22 PM

By Eric Scheiner
Subscribe to Eric Scheiner RSS
Follow Eric Scheiner on Twitter
91.3K 68
A man was arrested in Ohio for having a hidden compartment in a vehicle and could face up to 18 months in prison, even though there was nothing in the compartment.

Just days before Thanksgiving, 30- year old Norman Gurley was pulled over for speeding, but Ohio State Troopers noticed wires running to the back of the car he was driving.

“During the search, they noticed some components inside the vehicle that did not appear to be factory,” Lt. Michael Combs told WKYC-TV.

"We actually figured it out and followed the wiring and we were able to get it open," said Combs.



There were no illegal drugs or weapons in the compartment, but Gurley became the first person arrested under the state’s “hidden compartment” law.

The Ohio law passed last year prohibits, “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.”

This law makes driving a car with a concealed compartment intended to carry a controlled substance a felony.

Troopers reportedly noticed an overwhelming smell of marijuana, which gave them probable cause to search the vehicle and led to the discovery of the compartment.

The arrest has given voice to those critical to the law, who claim that just having a hidden space in a vehicle shouldn’t be considered a crime.

The ACLU of Ohio had been opposed to the measure. A statement on the ACLU website says, “The ACLU of Ohio believes SB 305 is an unnecessary and unproductive expansion of law. Drug trafficking is already prohibited under Ohio law, so there is no use for shifting the focus to the container.”

Reason.com reports that Gurley’s lawyer, Myron Watson, claims that Gurley has no criminal record and the vehicle he was driving was a friend’s and that Gurley had no knowledge of the compartment.

A passenger in the vehicle was found in possession of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/eric-scheiner/man-arrested-having-concealed-compartment-vehicle

Do I get an apology now? Since you accused me of lying?
No, the arrested was not the passenger who had the weed on him. The arrested was arrested because of the vehicle, as stated by the cops. The vehicle is alleged, by the arrested, to not be his vehicle.

You lied about the arrested.
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.

You implied that the arrested runs drugs, and you implied he installed the compartment. Both unsubstantiated at this point and thus lies. your position is the position of the cops, their official story. Those cops have maligned and impugned that citizens reputation. Those cops will cost him many thousands of dollars and likely his livelihood, if he has one.

You state that the compartment is used for, or was used for, drugs, but that is only a assumption by you and the cops since they have no evidence to prove that contention. Thus it is a lie until proven to be false.

The polite legal verbiage is "false allegation."

The only person who should have been arrested was the dude with the weed. Once the vehicle was confirmed to not be owned by the arrested, which would be very easy, the cops should have impounded the car and then the "perp" released to his own devices.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
From the law
(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.
(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.
The cops have a long row to hoe. If all the cops have is this law then OH is definitely of my visit or pass through list. I have several non-OEM switches and gizmos in my vehicle. If a non-OEM switch is all they need then OH is rapidly becoming a state to avoid.
“During the search, they noticed some components inside the vehicle that did not appear to be factory,” Lt. Michael Combs told WKYC.

My earlier question regarding safes is answered in the final sub paragraph 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.
Though, i do lock prescription drugs in my safe in the truck. The law does not exclude a controlled substance that is for the registered owner of the vehicle.

From ORC 3719.01
(C) "Controlled substance" means a drug, compound, mixture, preparation, or substance included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V.
This is a bad law. A very bad law. As was stated so correctly:

“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. [in Ohio it seems]
Nor is it confirmed that he even knew of the compartment, as in knowingly.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
(2) "Hidden compartment" means a container, space, or enclosure that conceals, hides, or otherwise prevents the discovery of the contents of the container, space, or enclosure. "Hidden compartment" includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:
(a) False, altered, or modified fuel tanks;
(b) Any original factory equipment on a vehicle that has been modified to conceal, hide, or prevent the discovery of the modified equipment's contents;
(c) Any compartment, space, box, or other closed container that is added or attached to existing compartments, spaces, boxes, or closed containers integrated or attached to a vehicle.
BTW. In OH you are not permitted to modify your private property as you see fit. OH, how far you have fallen. This law is a abomination and a direct threat to every OH citizen and any other citizen who happens to find himself in OH.

The vast majority of citizens likely don't care one way or the other about what happens to Mr. Gurley. This is unfortunate.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
No, the arrested was not the passenger who had the weed on him. The arrested was arrested because of the vehicle, as stated by the cops. The vehicle is alleged, by the arrested, to not be his vehicle.

You lied about the arrested.

You implied that the arrested runs drugs, and you implied he installed the compartment. Both unsubstantiated at this point and thus lies. your position is the position of the cops, their official story. Those cops have maligned and impugned that citizens reputation. Those cops will cost him many thousands of dollars and likely his livelihood, if he has one.

You state that the compartment is used for, or was used for, drugs, but that is only a assumption by you and the cops since they have no evidence to prove that contention. Thus it is a lie until proven to be false.

The polite legal verbiage is "false allegation."

The only person who should have been arrested was the dude with the weed. Once the vehicle was confirmed to not be owned by the arrested, which would be very easy, the cops should have impounded the car and then the "perp" released to his own devices.

Lol I was hoping you'd man up and admit you stated I was lying about there being weed found seeing as how that's what you focused on in your post. But I see. Takes gut to admit you were wrong in saying I was lying. Instead you twist and retract and try to insinuate you weren't stating that no one was found with marijuana.

Its ok OC. I did expect better but I've been wrong before.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Lol I was hoping you'd man up and admit you stated I was lying about there being weed found seeing as how that's what you focused on in your post. But I see. Takes gut to admit you were wrong in saying I was lying. Instead you twist and retract and try to insinuate you weren't stating that no one was found with marijuana.

Its ok OC. I did expect better but I've been wrong before.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
There were no drugs found in the car, or the arrested, Mr. Gurley. There were drugs found on a passenger. You did lie about Mr. Gurley. And so are the cops. They state as fact that which is not fact but allegation, this is lying. Your refusal to address the op, again, means that reasonable and rational discussion with you on this topic is futile. I will not engage in a discussion with unreasonable and irrational citizens. It is a waste of my time and your time.
 

CT Barfly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
328
Location
Ffld co.
Man Arrested For Having Concealed Compartment in Vehicle
December 27, 2013 - 12:22 PM

By Eric Scheiner
Subscribe to Eric Scheiner RSS
Follow Eric Scheiner on Twitter
91.3K 68
A man was arrested in Ohio for having a hidden compartment in a vehicle and could face up to 18 months in prison, even though there was nothing in the compartment.

Just days before Thanksgiving, 30- year old Norman Gurley was pulled over for speeding, but Ohio State Troopers noticed wires running to the back of the car he was driving.

“During the search, they noticed some components inside the vehicle that did not appear to be factory,” Lt. Michael Combs told WKYC-TV.

"We actually figured it out and followed the wiring and we were able to get it open," said Combs.



There were no illegal drugs or weapons in the compartment, but Gurley became the first person arrested under the state’s “hidden compartment” law.

The Ohio law passed last year prohibits, “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.”

This law makes driving a car with a concealed compartment intended to carry a controlled substance a felony.

Troopers reportedly noticed an overwhelming smell of marijuana, which gave them probable cause to search the vehicle and led to the discovery of the compartment.

The arrest has given voice to those critical to the law, who claim that just having a hidden space in a vehicle shouldn’t be considered a crime.

The ACLU of Ohio had been opposed to the measure. A statement on the ACLU website says, “The ACLU of Ohio believes SB 305 is an unnecessary and unproductive expansion of law. Drug trafficking is already prohibited under Ohio law, so there is no use for shifting the focus to the container.”

Reason.com reports that Gurley’s lawyer, Myron Watson, claims that Gurley has no criminal record and the vehicle he was driving was a friend’s and that Gurley had no knowledge of the compartment.

A passenger in the vehicle was found in possession of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/eric-scheiner/man-arrested-having-concealed-compartment-vehicle

Do I get an apology now? Since you accused me of lying?

Well, i'm now satisfied that the arrest is good and the charge is good...a conviction may not fly but the damage is already done (felony charge, judge/jury, defense costs, etc.)

Remember, the conviction won't be for trafficking, it'll just be for having a container intended for use in trafficking. Good thing he didn't get nailed with a full container, but he's still going to have to explain to a judge/jury why he's not a trafficker. Too many coincidental facts for your average jury to acquit...unless some of the posters in here are on the jury.

Prosecution will be of the "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck" variety.

The first rule of criminal defense is that "most of your clients are criminals." If you're really pro-4A...pick better hills to die on than a guy who says "it's a borrowed car! that's not my weed!" The trooper on the stop has quite an investigatory nose if you ask me. I'm the first guy to be skeptical of the "i smelled weed" line of BS...until a passenger is found to have weed on him/her. Cigarette smokers smell like cigarettes...weed smokers smell like weed...cigar smokers smell like...whiskey. Criminals are stupid and routinely waive their rights...leading to these situations. They don't all end up going to the SCOTUS.

Let's wait for the prosecution of a pure innocent under this law before we break out the pitchforks and torches.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The citizen had no prior record therefore I believe he will be cited for the speeding violation and the other trumped up charges DROPPED.

He will pay his speeding ticket and be free to go... The Ohio ACLU will litigate against the law/statute and the state will defend its position using tax payer dollars defending a law that should never have been established in the first place...

My .02

Best regards

CCJ
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Well, i'm now satisfied that the arrest is good and the charge is good...a conviction may not fly but the damage is already done (felony charge, judge/jury, defense costs, etc.)

Remember, the conviction won't be for trafficking, it'll just be for having a container intended for use in trafficking. Good thing he didn't get nailed with a full container, but he's still going to have to explain to a judge/jury why he's not a trafficker. Too many coincidental facts for your average jury to acquit...unless some of the posters in here are on the jury.

Prosecution will be of the "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck" variety.

The first rule of criminal defense is that "most of your clients are criminals." If you're really pro-4A...pick better hills to die on than a guy who says "it's a borrowed car! that's not my weed!" The trooper on the stop has quite an investigatory nose if you ask me. I'm the first guy to be skeptical of the "i smelled weed" line of BS...until a passenger is found to have weed on him/her. Cigarette smokers smell like cigarettes...weed smokers smell like weed...cigar smokers smell like...whiskey. Criminals are stupid and routinely waive their rights...leading to these situations. They don't all end up going to the SCOTUS.

Let's wait for the prosecution of a pure innocent under this law before we break out the pitchforks and torches.

You are completely missing the element of the crime where the defendant must KNOW that the compartment is used to transport contraband. Since it wasn't being currently used to transport contraband and since the car did not belong to the accused, I see proving the element of KNOWING impossible to prove. The DA likely will drop the charges.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

CT Barfly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
328
Location
Ffld co.
You are completely missing the element of the crime where the defendant must KNOW that the compartment is used to transport contraband. Since it wasn't being currently used to transport contraband and since the car did not belong to the accused, I see proving the element of KNOWING impossible to prove. The DA likely will drop the charges.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I'm not missing it. In order for this to be a 4A issue, we are questioning the search/seizure...not the ultimate guilt or innocence. In other words, was the arrest proper? Initially, before the marijuana came into the picture, I took issue with the arrest. Now that we know there was additional wrongdoing by someone there...the arrest became (IMO) legally justified.

While the requisite knowing mens rea must be established BRD in order to get a conviction...that isn't for an officer to determine at the scene. The officer can reasonably presume that what he is observing is known to the defendant. In this case, "smell of marijuana + hidden compartment + possession of marijuana." Pleading ignorance at that point is futile (but, oh so common) in avoiding arrest unless someone else convinces the officer that the guy is just an innocent bystander. That happens ALL THE TIME when a compatriot of a would-be arrestee fesses up to ownership of contraband etc. It did not happen in this case...so they probably BOTH took the ride. Remember constructive possession?


A defendant may later convince a judge/jury that he didn't know about the hidden compartment etc...but on the side of the road, the defendant is presumed to have more knowledge than the officer...and if the officer has some knowledge it's probable that the defendant has more. I think that's pretty reasonable in the decision to arrest, which is only subject to a probable cause finding. 4A analysis doesn't really go much further than an exclusionary hearing.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Whatever the hell BRD is.

Anyway, you were predicting conviction. Nowhere will you see me arguing the arrest. I am predicting that charges will be dropped because conviction would be impossible.

To predict conviction, as you did, you must ignore the element of KNOWING.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 
Top