So why was he arrested?

[itsrequired]

What if someone was driving a 2001 Silverado? There's a compartment in the dash, put there by the factory, with a cover on it, it looks concealed. Does that mean anyone driving a '01 Silverado is a felon waiting to happen?

You need to read the law and that will answer your question.
Since the wording of the laws talks about drugs, what if he's smuggling guns? Does that not count?

You need to read the law and that will answer your question.


What if you drive a car in state that allows you to concealed carry, you decide to go into a store that doesn't allow it, what do you do? Do you leave it in the glovebox? Nah, to easy to steal. Do you put it in your locking glovebox? Well, it is made of plastic. Shouldn't be too hard to break into. Or, do you put it in your secret compartment? Nope, wouldn't want to be a felon or anything....

You need to read the law and that will answer your question.



What if you own multiple business and carry cash between them?

You need to read the law and that will answer your question.



What if you own a few jewelry stores? Do you want the bag of diamons sitting on your front seat?


You need to read the law and that will answer your question.


At least the CO was honest. "'Without the hidden compartment law, we would not have had any charges on the suspect,' says Combs." Which would lead me to believe there were no drug sniffing dogs, no priors, just a compartment. Something, anything, to lock the guy up.

Woops, almost forgot this part. "Troopers noticed an overwhelming smell of raw marijuana which gave them probable cause to search the car."

Make stuff up much?

 

[itsrequired]

Have you ever been accused of a similar crime or falsely accused? Ever had you life thrown in emotional and financial chaos because of something like this? You go la dee da through life thinking none of this affects you ------- until it does. Then suddently your eyes are open to the corruption and oppressiveness of these laws; little laws that don't seem to mean much --------------------------------- until it hit YOU square in the face.

Have you?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I don't know. What I do know is the cops on the scene have more information than we do.

I would arrest the guy if there were probable cause to do so. That's what I'm paid to do.

The cops supposedly smelled weed, but didn't find it.

Do you typically arrest people for not having something you thought they did?

Stop with the overly broad answers. If you were the cop in this case, would you arrest the guy?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Make stuff up much?

No #### I made it up, it's called hypothetical for a reason.

This guy, who didn't fit the requirements to be arrested in law you keep telling me to read was arrested, so why the hell should I believe it?

What is it that you want me to read? What makes this guy guilty of the intent of transporting drugs (while not transporting drugs), but any of the hypotheticals I came up with don't merit a (at least somewhat) logical response from anyone?

 

[itsrequired]

Does he have a job that he now has to explain why he can't make it into work? Will he still have a job when this is all over; IF acquitted?

Yes he has a job. He's a pharmacuetical salesman.

You make a lot of assumptions that he's innocent. I figured I would make one which is more in line with the guys who arrested him and know more about the case rather than the guy who read it on the Blaze and is now all in an uproar.

 

[itsrequired]

The cops supposedly smelled weed, but didn't find it.

Do you typically arrest people for not having something you thought they did?

Stop with the overly broad answers. If you were the cop in this case, would you arrest the guy?

It's not an overly broad answer. I'm not going to base my decision on some information which came from the blaze, a newspaper which is notorious for providing the editorialized version of what they want out there in a story.

I stand by my answer. If there were probable cause to arrest the guy, I would.

 

[itsrequired]

No #### I made it up, it's called hypothetical for a reason.

This guy, who didn't fit the requirements to be arrested in law you keep telling me to read was arrested, so why the hell should I believe it?

What is it that you want me to read? What makes this guy guilty of the intent of transporting drugs (while not transporting drugs), but any of the hypotheticals I came up with don't merit a (at least somewhat) logical response from anyone? I, nor you have all the details of the investigation to determine what makes this guy guilty of the intent to transport drugs. The police may have more information, on which they based their arrest.

I want you to read section "I" which will tell you why what you wrote is ridiculous.

 

[PsyOps]

Why would I retract what I said. These posts have nothing to do with you saying cops would now target the guy because he was aquitted of a felonious crime. I stand by what I said.

Plate scanners do not target every person who has been arrested, or even provide information every person's criminal history.

As I said before, you speak of what you know nothing about. You are full of sh*t.

First of all you’re spinning my points. Typical of you people on the left spin to deflect the real point. You claiming I posted things I never posted. But go back and read your own post (#16); I provided proof that I am right. Police do indeed use tracking methods when they pass, at stop lights, and through these plate trackers. You are wrong on your counter to this, and were wrong to claim I lied about anything.

So you can cast all the aspersions in the world; it wont change the truth about what LE is doing out there. So you stand by your false accusation. You’ve already earned your reputation on here. You don’t need me to further help you dig that hole.

 

[PsyOps]

Have you?

First of all, it’s a rhetorical question. Second, it’s really none of your business. It’s meant to say that if you’ve never been raked through the legal system before, then perhaps you shouldn’t claim something doesn’t affect just because it hasn’t happened to you.

 

[PsyOps]

Yes he has a job. He's a pharmacuetical salesman.

You make a lot of assumptions that he's innocent. I figured I would make one which is more in line with the guys who arrested him and know more about the case rather than the guy who read it on the Blaze and is now all in an uproar.

I never assumed he was innocent or guity. That's why, even in what you quoted me as saying, I said 'IF acquitted.

If the story is true, that he had a hidden box and it was empty, having a law that states it's illegal to have a hidden box in your car and it's a felony drug crime, that is about as stupid a law as it gets.

Supporting such a law shows what little you care about liberty

Saying it doesn't affect me because I wont do it ignores the fact that liberty applies to everyone, not just those that choose to exercise this or that. If one of your family members decided to install a hidden box in their car to hide valuables, and these valuables are legal, in Ohio your family member will be charged with a felony. And you seem okay with this; all in an effort to fight the war on drugs; when your family member doesn't even have anything to do with drugs.

 

[itsrequired]

First of all you’re spinning my points. Typical of you people on the left spin to deflect the real point. You claiming I posted things I never posted. But go back and read your own post (#16); I provided proof that I am right. Police do indeed use tracking methods when they pass, at stop lights, and through these plate trackers. You are wrong on your counter to this, and were wrong to claim I lied about anything.

So you can cast all the aspersions in the world; it wont change the truth about what LE is doing out there. So you stand by your false accusation. You’ve already earned your reputation on here. You don’t need me to further help you dig that hole.

I'm on the left. Lol yes, that's where most cops I know sit.

This is what you said in post 11;

Originally Posted by PsyOps
The fact that he was charged with a felony is disturbing. The cops have his plates now and will be a target every time a cop passes him. His life is screwed from here on out.

This is where I said you were full of sh*t and stand by that statement.

This is what I said in post 16;

I may not have all of life figured out, but the out and out lie that you just told about cops targeting every vehicle is something I know about. It shows you have ZERO experience in the field which you are espousing to know something about. I know that it is incomprehensible to think that any police officer would have the time to run every tag and then do a criminal history on every operator of each vehicle they pass on the street to learn that the person operating the vehicle was once arrested, but acquitted of a crime. It's complete and utter nonsense.

But of course, that's your MO. Make a statement, then leave it alone when the ridiculousness of it is proven.

If, by pointing out you have no life experience in this field is insulting, then you need to get a thicker skin.

You know not what you speak of, and constantly prove yourself wrong. If that is insulting, I do apologize, I understand how sensitive you are.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

It's not an overly broad answer. I'm not going to base my decision on some information which came from the blaze, a newspaper which is notorious for providing the editorialized version of what they want out there in a story.

I stand by my answer. If there were probable cause to arrest the guy, I would.

All the information I got was from the original news agency that posted the story.

First person in Northeast Ohio arrested under 'hidden compartment' law

What probable cause did these cops have to arrest him? Ok, they smelled pot, so they searched his car. Fine.

During the search, they find a secret compartment, and arrest him based on the law we're all talking about.

That law specifically says that empty boxes, without residue don't apply.

We all know you'd arrest this guy.

I want you to read section "I" which will tell you why what you wrote is ridiculous.

The same section that would have made what this guy did perfectly ok?

The same section that I posted a few pages ago?

Tell me, what do I need to read? Obviously we can't rely on the arresting officers to interpret the laws, espcially when they are getting a big pat on the back from their CO, and the media.

 

[itsrequired]

All the information I got was from the original news agency that posted the story.

First person in Northeast Ohio arrested under 'hidden compartment' law

What probable cause did these cops have to arrest him? Ok, they smelled pot, so they searched his car. Fine.

During the search, they find a secret compartment, and arrest him based on the law we're all talking about.

That law specifically says that empty boxes, without residue don't apply.

No, it doesn't. The law states that if there is evidence showing the guy has an intent to distribute cds than the box or compartment is illegal. Don't just read one part of the law, read the whole thing.
We all know you'd arrest this guy.



The same section that would have made what this guy did perfectly ok?

Certainly I would if there were probable cause. Again, you, nor I have all the information the police on the scene have.
The same section that I posted a few pages ago?

Tell me, what do I need to read? Obviously we can't rely on the arresting officers to interpret the laws, espcially when they are getting a big pat on the back from their CO, and the media.

Yea for them, and YEA for justice.

 

[Baja28]

First of all, it’s a rhetorical question. Second, it’s really none of your business. It’s meant to say that if you’ve never been raked through the legal system before, then perhaps you shouldn’t claim something doesn’t affect just because it hasn’t happened to you.

So it was none of your business when you asked me the same question.

In the mean time, this guy, who was smuggling nothing, has to hire a lawyer. Ever had to hire a criminal lawyer? He has to be raked through the legal system. Finger printed, interrogated, put in jail. Does he have family? Does he have a job that he now has to explain why he can't make it into work? Will he still have a job when this is all over; IF acquitted? All because he had a hidden box, will his life ever be the same?

I'll answer that. Yes I have and I got my day in court. That's why we have a legal system. You know, that CONSTITUTION thing and all. Imagine that!

You are assuming that the cops are lying about smelling Mary Jane. Pretty big leap there if you ask me.

If he goes through all you described, loses his job etc, etc, etc... he can use the same legal system to pursue damages. My money says he has prior convictions.

 

[Larry Gude]

You are assuming that the cops are lying about smelling Mary Jane. Pretty big leap there if you ask me.

If he goes through all you described, loses his job etc, etc, etc... he can use the same legal system to pursue damages. My money says he has prior convictions.

I assume they are not. I assume their Spidy sense were tingling up a storm.

And it is still stupid to criminalize building a hidden compartment. It suggests, strongly, there are deeper problems with our criminal justice system that this sort of effort may be put to better use fixing.

 

[Baja28]

I assume they are not. I assume their Spidy sense were tingling up a storm.

And it is still stupid to criminalize building a hidden compartment. It suggests, strongly, there are deeper problems with our criminal justice system that this sort of effort may be put to better use fixing.

I'm inclined to agree with you because I believe he has priors.

It's not illegal!!! Only if you have something illegal in it or prior convictions.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

No, it doesn't. The law states that if there is evidence showing the guy has an intent to distribute cds than the box or compartment is illegal. Don't just read one part of the law, read the whole thing.

Yes....it does.

Here is the section YOU told me to read.....

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."

Tell me, what evidence do you think they had on this guy. Evidence that he INTENT to do anything. Please, elaborate.

Yea for them, and YEA for justice.

Justice? How so? How in the flying hell is this considered justice?

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm inclined to agree with you because I believe he has priors.

It's not illegal!!! Only if you have something illegal in it or prior convictions.

No. Let the record show I was agreeing with you.

 

[itsrequired]

Yes....it does.

Here is the section YOU told me to read.....



Tell me, what evidence do you think they had on this guy. Evidence that he INTENT to do anything. Please, elaborate.



Justice? How so? How in the flying hell is this considered justice?

As I have said numerous times, there is a myriad of different evidence the officers can have to develop and articulate probable cause to this person having the intent to distribute narcotics. (This is a separate element of the crime annotated prior to section I, that you seem to ignore. What that evidence is, I don't know because I was not there.

 

[Baja28]

No. Let the record show I was agreeing with you.

WOOT! WOOT!!

I think Chris and I agree sometime too. But only about fishing or hunting.