Arrested for having a compartment that could store drugs

Maybe he was on the way to Colorado.



http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/30/driver-arrested-for-having-empty-compartment-that-could-store-drugs/

what a bunch of shit! that is one of the stupidest damn laws ive ever heard of.   

Chrissy wrote:what a bunch of shit! that is one of the stupidest damn laws ive ever heard of.   

How the hell did they get that one on the books?

bghlaw0371 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:what a bunch of shit! that is one of the stupidest damn laws ive ever heard of.   

How the hell did they get that one on the books?

im baffled. I mean seriously. you cant have a secret compartment, really? wonder if I want to secretly carry around other stuff that isn't illegal but embarrassing.

id be interested in following this case.

They made a man go to the hospital and get a very deep anal probe because he scratched his ass while the police inspected his car...nothing was found in his "secret" compartment. People need to sue and sue again when this happens...

An officer has the discretion and power to just about arrest any person for anything they deem to be an infraction of the law.  This one is pretty easy.  First, Scalia's recent decision about drug sniffing dogs going by a house was not probable cause and he cited the case which they ruled on this spring that there is an expectation of privacy in your car when the police were putting gps devices on folks cars without warrants.......This is not a crime on the face of the statute, but they will also challenge the statute on constitutional grounds of being overly broad and impossible to enforce under the equal protection clause where an officer can be arbitrary and capricious in deciding a violation of this general statute.....he walks.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:They made a man go to the hospital and get a very deep anal probe because he scratched his ass while the police inspected his car...nothing was found in his "secret" compartment. People need to sue and sue again when this happens...

How the hell do you sue when the idiots in that state have allowed that idiotic law to be placed on the books in the first place? A compartment that "could" have had an illegal substance in it?

2seaoat wrote:An officer has the discretion and power to just about arrest any person for anything they deem to be an infraction of the law.  This one is pretty easy.  First, Scalia's recent decision about drug sniffing dogs going by a house was not probable cause and he cited the case which they ruled on this spring that there is an expectation of privacy in your car when the police were putting gps devices on folks cars without warrants.......This is not a crime on the face of the statute, but they will also challenge the statute on constitutional grounds of being overly broad and impossible to enforce under the equal protection clause where an officer can be arbitrary and capricious in deciding a violation of this general statute.....he walks.

2seaoat, an arrest was made. An individual should have to go to court to prove a negative? WTF...

bghlaw0371 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:They made a man go to the hospital and get a very deep anal probe because he scratched his ass while the police inspected his car...nothing was found in his "secret" compartment. People need to sue and sue again when this happens...

How the hell do you sue when the idiots in that state have allowed that idiotic law to be placed on the books in the first place?  A compartment that "could" have had an illegal substance in it?  

perhaps some laywer could take the case on and let it go to the supreme court as a infringement on his rights?

hmm now what right in the constitution protects secret compartments?

Chrissy wrote:

bghlaw0371 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:They made a man go to the hospital and get a very deep anal probe because he scratched his ass while the police inspected his car...nothing was found in his "secret" compartment. People need to sue and sue again when this happens...

How the hell do you sue when the idiots in that state have allowed that idiotic law to be placed on the books in the first place?  A compartment that "could" have had an illegal substance in it?  

perhaps some laywer could take the case on and let it go to the supreme court as a infringement on his rights?

hmm now what right in the constitution protects secret compartments?

I have a compartment in my car that has nothing in it. You can't see it. I have a wire run to it that will hook up to a sub woofer if I choose. A cop pulls me over in that dumb ass state. I go to jail. I have to hire a damn attorney. Really?

I have a compartment in my car that has nothing in it. You can't see it. I have a wire run to it that will hook up to a sub woofer if I choose. A cop pulls me over in that dumb ass state. I go to jail. I have to hire a damn attorney. Really?

Again an officer has the power and discretion to enforce what they think the law is........the courts will either correct him, or agree with him. This case is a no brainer. The problem with the statute books.....they used to be eight inches........to day they are two feet. Every legislator gets elected and is going to solve a problem......This should have been booted with an AG opinion from the onset, but nobody wants to be pro criminal......unless citizens are becoming criminals out of thin air.

so if the charges get dropped, does the man get to sue them for false arrest and slander since they made out publically that he is a drug dealer?

Chrissy wrote:so if the charges get dropped, does the man get to sue them for false arrest and slander since they made out publically that he is a drug dealer?

Only if he has enough money to buy due process.

Chrissy wrote:so if the charges get dropped, does the man get to sue them for false arrest and slander since they made out publically that he is a drug dealer?

probably not since it was said that there was probable cause to make the arrest because the officer said he smelled MJ. A better question might be how is he qualified as a drug sniffing dog? did he have special training to sniff out MJ? I also don't think they would be successful at a trial because they were probably aware of the compartment and the state would eat em up because of that reason. Preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof in civil cases. If you could defeat the probable cause then yes, you have a better shot, but in this case how would you do this? its their word vs. law enforcements.

Hey we will all be going to jail...We gots a trunk and a glove box and spaces under our seats and a gas tank and and and....

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Hey we will all be going to jail...We gots a trunk and a glove box and spaces under our seats and a gas tank and and and....

That's the way it looks.

this would be an example of defeating probable cause just as in my case  When law enforcement intentionally omits or fabricates statements on the arrest affidavit in order to obtain a search warrant, they are in violation of due process. The arrest affidavit not only includes incriminating statements i didnt make, but also omits crucial information that if  included, would have shown that law enforcement created/manufactured all elements of the charged offenses and probable cause would not have been established. It would have shown that law enforcement, acting under the color of law, continually harassed, encouraged, cajoled, and thus induced myself, an otherwise law abiding citizen, into trying to commit a crime(s) I was found not predisposed. When these omissions and evidence were brought before the court of appeals, they properly ruled that I had been entrapped as a matter of law. Because of these omissions and false statements were deliberate and intentional, as well as the blatant violation of policy and procedure, law enforcement illegally obtained a search warrant by lying to the judge who was unable to properly examine the “totality of the circumstances” and signed the arrest warrant. In doing so, law enforcement enacted a "commando" style raid of my home in which no evidence was found to substantiate the charges on the affidavit thus violating my 4th amendment right against illegal search and seizure.

bghlaw0371 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Hey we will all be going to jail...We gots a trunk and a glove box and spaces under our seats and a gas tank and and and....

That's the way it looks.

I think that what was exposed here is a flawed statute.

i think the best thing to do in this situation would have been for the cop to note the tag number as a possible suspicious vehicle into criminal activity. If at a later date law enforcement were to encounter this vehicle again, they might just catch them in a criminal act

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Hey we will all be going to jail...We gots a trunk and a glove box and spaces under our seats and a gas tank and and and....

This is a statement that has much truth, lol. and I speak from experience

I think Walter White can be an advisor to the State of Ohio on drafting legislation.

i just think it is hilarious that the arrest was justified because the cop thought he smelt MJ. How is he qualified to be able to sniff out such a smell like a drug sniffing dog? That could be an angle to attack the PC issue. Drug sniffing dogs i am sure go thru extensive training in order to be certified to sniff out drugs. Did the officer go thru the same training? Fat chance, unless he eats Alpo

talknstang wrote:i just think it is hilarious that the arrest was justified because the cop thought he smelt MJ. How is he qualified to be able to sniff out such a smell like a drug sniffing dog?  That could be an angle to attack the PC issue.  Drug sniffing dogs i am sure go thru extensive training in order to be certified to sniff out drugs.  Did the officer go thru the same training?  Fat chance,  unless he eats Alpo

I hope folks remember to take notice when traveling from a state such as Colorado through the country into a state such as the one where you can't have a compartment in your car that may have the possibility of having had something from Colorado placed in it at some point.

bghlaw0371 wrote:

talknstang wrote:i just think it is hilarious that the arrest was justified because the cop thought he smelt MJ. How is he qualified to be able to sniff out such a smell like a drug sniffing dog?  That could be an angle to attack the PC issue.  Drug sniffing dogs i am sure go thru extensive training in order to be certified to sniff out drugs.  Did the officer go thru the same training?  Fat chance,  unless he eats Alpo

I hope folks remember to take notice when traveling from a state such as Colorado through the country into a state such as the one where you can't have a compartment in your car that may have the possibility of having had something from Colorado placed in it at some point.

your response is somewhat confusing. Unless there was a similar federal statute, that case would remain in Ohio and not go federal. Travelling interstate with a hidden compartment wouldn't have any other consequences because of this. Now if there was contraband in the compartment, that would be a different story. The driver would be arrested for the contraband as well as the hidden compartment and perhaps other charges. You know what they say, "ignorance of the law is no exuse" lol

talknstang wrote:

bghlaw0371 wrote:

talknstang wrote:i just think it is hilarious that the arrest was justified because the cop thought he smelt MJ. How is he qualified to be able to sniff out such a smell like a drug sniffing dog?  That could be an angle to attack the PC issue.  Drug sniffing dogs i am sure go thru extensive training in order to be certified to sniff out drugs.  Did the officer go thru the same training?  Fat chance,  unless he eats Alpo

I hope folks remember to take notice when traveling from a state such as Colorado through the country into a state such as the one where you can't have a compartment in your car that may have the possibility of having had something from Colorado placed in it at some point.

your response is somewhat confusing.  Unless there was a similar federal statute, that case would remain in Ohio and not go federal. Travelling interstate with a hidden compartment  wouldn't have any other consequences because of this. Now if there was contraband in the compartment, that would be a different story. The driver would be arrested for the contraband as well as the hidden compartment and perhaps other charges. You know what they say, "ignorance of the law is no exuse"  lol

Didn't mean to confuse. Sarcasm, in the fact that if the compartment is empty...nothing there...a compartment that can't be seen, that may or may not have had something in it that may or may not have been legal or illegal in one state before traveling through another state where it may be percieved to be illegal even if it is not there, but might have been under certain circumstances in another state.

In other words. If a person has pot in their car in Colorado in a compartment that is not visible from the outside of the car. It's legal.

If they remove the pot from the compartment in Colorado, and clean out the compartment, and go through this state. They can be arrested for having a compartment that smells like pot.