Secret Compartment in auto ILLEGAL - man arrested

[F350]

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

Or perhaps a LAC who wants to secure his sidearm when going into a "victim disarmament zone" like most governmental offices.

I grew up in Indiana, a buddy drove race cars and we frequently went to races in Ohio in the 70s and 80s; I considered Ohio to be a police state only slightly behind Illinois when it came to guns.

 

[Primus]

I'm not missing it. 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 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.

+1 well said CT. You don't prove beyond reasonable doubt on he street. Just probable cause.

I do agree this case will be tough to prove based on what we know so far. I agree that they need element of knowledge to have PC for the arrest. Maybe since it was obvious to the officer that there was wires it could be said that the operator should have also known? Thus establishing probable cause they did know? And remember the statute just says being in possession of said vehicle.

The problem is we are going off 2 articles. 1 didn't even mention that there was marijuana found on a person in the vehicle (not the operator).

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[MSG Laigaie]

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.

Not Truth!!

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

Or perhaps a LAC who wants to secure his sidearm when going into a "victim disarmament zone" like most governmental offices.

Or maybe that is just the way I like to lock up a bit of survival equipment that cannot be retrieved by anyone but me. Bottom line is....you should not get arrested for NOT breaking the law. What I may do in the future should not be a part of a totalitarian governmental decision about my current conduct. Don't tread on me.

 

[cmr287]

What law was broken???

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

 

[DocWalker]

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.

Besides cop cars have "crystal balls" installed as standard equipment now.

 

[carolina guy]

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>

+1

It is hard to prove that someone who owns the car (much less someone who doesn't own the car), KNOWINGLY built the compartment to transport drugs (I think that contraband is a bit catch-all based on other quotes of the statute) if there are none in it when found, and no evidence exists that drugs were EVER in it.

 

[carolina guy]

Not Truth!!





Or maybe that is just the way I like to lock up a bit of survival equipment that cannot be retrieved by anyone but me. Bottom line is....you should not get arrested for NOT breaking the law. What I may do in the future should not be a part of a totalitarian governmental decision about my current conduct. Don't tread on me.

+100

 

[countryclubjoe]

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>

Hi eye95

I believe BRD= BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT...

Text message slang.... LOL

Best regards

CCJ

 

[eye95]

Thanks CCJ!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[CT Barfly]

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>

Not ignoring anything. I'm just properly applying the correct standard for the officer to apply in evaluating whether there is PC for arrest and comparing it to the statute.

There are a few "knowing" mens rea...such as knowing, reckless and intentional in which the defendant has knowledge and either intends for the result or knows but ignores a likely risk of the result....and one "un-knowing" mens rea, negligence, where you just have to show that a reasonable person would not have acted like the defendant.

So, the officer is standing on the side of the road with a dude who is in possession of a car, the car has BOTH marijuana AND a secret compartment. The officer almost HAS to assume that the defendant knows of the presence of both, despite what the defendant (who is trying to stay out of jail) is telling him. The fact that the drugs are there, well, the officer would have almost no way of knowing what the defendant REALLY knows...which is why he doesn't have to have BRD proof in order to make the arrest...and even if ultimately there's a ton of RD here.

So, the arrest is OK (and in reality, the damage is done).

The defendant's subjective knowledge (that contained within his skull, which nobody else on planet earth can know) is for the judge/jury to weigh in seeing him answer questions or listening to the other witnesses recount the encounter. Subjective knowledge is for the fact finder, not really the officer...though SOME officers will be really gracious and apply their own crap-detector on scene in deciding whether someone takes a ride...not obligated to, and it's great when they do.

As far as conviction...all of these facts are coming into play, plus add in the jury bias against the defendant, and getting an acquittal starts to look a lot less likely. Yes, the ultimate evidence is the defendant's honest knowledge about the intended use of the compartment...and without a finding that he knew beyond a reasonable doubt that the compartment is used for drugs, he goes home. I am merely stating that his defense of "i didn't know, it wasn't my car, etc." really comes apart when the prosecutor says in opening/closing statements..."AND THERE WAS WEED IN THE CAR!!!" If I were a prosecutor, that case is not getting dropped unless I meet with the defendant and he seems credible and honest and "in the wrong place at the wrong time." This defendant is not exactly the mosty sympathetic, he apparently hangs out with drug users/possessors...a jury isn't gonna ignore that.

 

[CT Barfly]

Try to look at it from the other side. If I am wrong here (and maybe I am!) Then this statute could NEVER be enforced against a silent defendant because a required element concerns knowledge directly and only within the skull/brain of a defendant. We KNOW this isn't the case...circumstances and demeanor can often be used at trial to INFER BRD what a defendant's state of mind is. Each juror's crap-detector will be used to determine whether the state has proven its case.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Not 100% positive, but I believe the defendant had no prior arrest... Pleads to the speeding violations, pays his fines and fees and goes home..

My .02

CCJ

 

[notalawyer]

Not ignoring anything. I'm just properly applying the correct standard for the officer to apply in evaluating whether there is PC for arrest and comparing it to the statute.

There are a few "knowing" mens rea...such as knowing, reckless and intentional in which the defendant has knowledge and either intends for the result or knows but ignores a likely risk of the result....and one "un-knowing" mens rea, negligence, where you just have to show that a reasonable person would not have acted like the defendant.

So, the officer is standing on the side of the road with a dude who is in possession of a car, the car has BOTH marijuana AND a secret compartment. The officer almost HAS to assume that the defendant knows of the presence of both, despite what the defendant (who is trying to stay out of jail) is telling him. The fact that the drugs are there, well, the officer would have almost no way of knowing what the defendant REALLY knows...which is why he doesn't have to have BRD proof in order to make the arrest...and even if ultimately there's a ton of RD here.

So, the arrest is OK (and in reality, the damage is done).

The defendant's subjective knowledge (that contained within his skull, which nobody else on planet earth can know) is for the judge/jury to weigh in seeing him answer questions or listening to the other witnesses recount the encounter. Subjective knowledge is for the fact finder, not really the officer...though SOME officers will be really gracious and apply their own crap-detector on scene in deciding whether someone takes a ride...not obligated to, and it's great when they do.

As far as conviction...all of these facts are coming into play, plus add in the jury bias against the defendant, and getting an acquittal starts to look a lot less likely. Yes, the ultimate evidence is the defendant's honest knowledge about the intended use of the compartment...and without a finding that he knew beyond a reasonable doubt that the compartment is used for drugs, he goes home. I am merely stating that his defense of "i didn't know, it wasn't my car, etc." really comes apart when the prosecutor says in opening/closing statements..."AND THERE WAS WEED IN THE CAR!!!" If I were a prosecutor, that case is not getting dropped unless I meet with the defendant and he seems credible and honest and "in the wrong place at the wrong time." This defendant is not exactly the mosty sympathetic, he apparently hangs out with drug users/possessors...a jury isn't gonna ignore that.

This case will never make it to trial, or if it does must be dismissed immediately, as a matter of law! No drugs in the compartment, nor visible residue of drugs in the compartment - this law does not apply!

 

[OC for ME]

The law prohibits all vehicles, not Ohio vehicles. If there is no prohibition against constructing a "secret compartment" in a vehicle registered in MI then the OH law can not be applied to that MI registered vehicle. This is the exact situation as the FOID card requirement in IL. Ohio should tread lightly here and carefully consider the implications of a prosecution.

 

[JoeSparky]

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

Let me understand this: The found an empty hidden compartment? Doesn't seem to be very well hidden much like the guy arrested and charged for the carry of a concealed weapon that the officer could SEE!

 

[OC for ME]

Mr. Gurley did not possess drugs, the cops acknowledged this. Without the secret compartment law they could not arrest Mr. Gurley. His arrest is based on he merely possessing the vehicle when the law states that is not the standard to meet to apply that law. His assertion that he is not the owner, nor that he knew of the "secret compartment" (if he made that assertion) is all that the cop(s) need to not arrest. Proof of ownership can be determined on the side of the road.

It will not surprise me if a judge rules that the arrest was unlawful given the standard to meet written into the law.

 

[CT Barfly]

Mr. Gurley did not possess drugs, the cops acknowledged this. Without the secret compartment law they could not arrest Mr. Gurley. His arrest is based on he merely possessing the vehicle when the law states that is not the standard to meet to apply that law. His assertion that he is not the owner, nor that he knew of the "secret compartment" (if he made that assertion) is all that the cop(s) need to not arrest. Proof of ownership can be determined on the side of the road.

It will not surprise me if a judge rules that the arrest was unlawful given the standard to meet written into the law.

it's about possession, not ownership.

he was driving...he possessed it.

 

[Primus]

it's about possession, not ownership.

he was driving...he possessed it.

Correct. The statute specifically says possession along with a bunch of other things.

You already nailed it before. Its just PC based on the fact that if he's driving it and the cop was able to figure out how to open to thing up after finding wires then there's PC the guy knew it was there.

For all we know the guy could have admitted to knowing the compartment was there not knowing it was illegal. If it says otherwise in article I apologize I don't remember him saying either way.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[eye95]

I would say that the PC is iffy. As soon as he establishes it is not his car, a reasonable person would have enough doubt that he KNEW that there should not be enough PC. I think there is enough to keep the officer out of trouble, but not enough to really justify the arrest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Primus]

I would say that the PC is iffy. As soon as he establishes it is not his car, a reasonable person would have enough doubt that he KNEW that there should not be enough PC. I think there is enough to keep the officer out of trouble, but not enough to really justify the arrest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I'd agree eye except there are other factors that we don't know about. For example it's a common tactic to simple have someone else register the vehicle you own. So if you run the tag as it comes back to susy but billy Joe is driving you have no idea who he is from the rmv data.

So yes the "owner" is susy but if billy bought the car paid her to register itwas more and he's the sole person driving the car.... who's is it really? Then its to easy to say "oh those drugs aren't mine look it belongs to susy" even though susy has never driven the car.

Like I said it'll probably get tossed in court. And I'm certain there is more that happened then the article says. We have no idea what the guy said at the stop.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk