I’m a member of a message board for members of the mobile-electronics industry. It’s populated by manufacturer representatives, shop owners, salespeople, installers, technical support staff, and so on.
Recently there was a post regarding the legality of installing “stash boxes” in cusotmers’ cars. That is, modifying the car so that it has something similar to an extra glove compartment, but completely invisible.
They are most often used by criminals to hide drugs, weapons, and other contraband, although they are occasionally used by jewelers and other people transporting valuables.
One person found a Georgia law that would appear to make it a crime for both the owner of the vehicle as well as the installer, regardless of whether the compartment was used to hide contraband or not:
I doubt that law would pass a court challenge. There is no good governmental reason to outlaw it, except for the hiding contraband aspect, and it greatly restricts many legitimate reasons for having one. That law would fail the “least restrictive” test for accomplishing a legitimate government interest.
I am packaging electronic equipment in a MY12 vehicle right now in a “secrect” compartment. If the customer doesn’t order my component that compartment is still there; empty and available for whatever they decide to do. So no, it’s BS from the police department; they just don’t like them but if the manufactuer designed it to be that way there is nothing they can do about (but cry).
On a quick read of that, it appears illegal if you (1) intend to hide from law enforcement (2) a body, contraband or illegal drugs. If you built a secret compartment, and used it to hide jewelry, money or other valuables from potential thieves, then it would not seem to contravene that law.
I’ve had cars in the past that had “hidden compartments” by happenstance of the design, such as underneath a cupholder or behind an unused dash panel.
My truck has storage underneath the rear seats. Although it’s probably common knowledge that rear truck seats often have storage bins below, there’s not exactly a sign advertising it.
The point is that there are many empty places inside automobiles that are not easily visible or accessible, whether or not they’re designed to hide things. It’s what you actually do with them that matters, not their existence.
The new (2007+ hard top and 2009+ convertible) Mini Coopers have a secret compartment, like an extra glove box that can only be accessed by pushing the panel in so it springs open. There is no indication that it is anything other than trim - no latches, no clasps, no ‘push here to open’ instructions. It is way cool and I wish my older MINI had it.
The test you refer to applies only when there is a fundamental right at stake.So far as I know, there is no law that state that we have a fundamental right to have a secret stash in our cars.
You’re reading it wrong. Let’s quote that whole section:
(B) is a list of examples of (A), but the restrictions of (A) still apply. You’d still have to show that it was attached for the “the purpose of the compartment is to conceal, hide, or prevent discovery by law enforcement officers of …”
How do you prove purpose? I say it is a tool box. Deputy Bubba says it is a secret compartment for hiding drugs. Who is correct? How do you prove purpose unless drugs are found there? So let’s look at the law again
So starting at the top does a cross bed tool box in a pickup truck qualify as a secret compartment?
Well is it “(1)(A) ‘False or secret compartment’ means any enclosure which is integrated into or attached to a vehicle”
Yes
Could you conceal any of the following in that box?
“(i) A person concealed for an unlawful purpose;
(ii) Controlled substances possessed in violation of Article 2 of Chapter 13 of this title; or
(iii) Other contraband.”
The answer to that is also yes.
Then read section B
“(B) Examples of ‘false or secret compartment’ may include, but are not limited to:
(i) False, altered, or modified fuel tanks;
(ii) Original factory equipment on a vehicle that has been modified; or
(iii) Any compartment, space, or box that is added or attached to existing compartments, spaces, or boxes of the vehicle.”
If section B(iii) is not the textbook definition of a cross bed tool box, then I will eat my hat.
So the way I read this, a cross bed tool box a secret compartment.
Now we move to section C
“(c)(1) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly own or operate any vehicle containing a false or secret compartment.
(2) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly install, create, build, or fabricate in any vehicle a false or secret compartment.
(3) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, trade, or otherwise dispose of a vehicle which is in violation of this Code section.”
so you can’t drive it, install it, build one, or sell the truck with one.
Your little dialogue seems to assume a judge and a jury that stepped off a flying saucer and have no experience of what kinds of containers are commonly used in vehicles.
Does the jury believe you? Does the judge believe you? How common is this thing? What does it look like it’s for? Where in the vehicle is it? The prosecutor is going to show pictures of it. Intent is often an issue in legal proceedings. You act like it’s some big mystery. The wording of this statute is not particularly unusual.
Did you happen to read the comment below the actual law?
Officer Bubba: We found a blanket, a pillow, a half eaten box of crackers, and two empty water bottles in the metal box. it is obvious that the owner of the truck had transported people in it before and inferred that he has the intent of do it again.
Really shitty law writing IMHO
Evidence that something illegal was stored in the compartment can be used go infer that the compartment was installed to hide illegal substances from the cops.
That sounds like a completely ordinary inference in the law.
I’m not impressed by the comment. It sounds like a typically hysterical criminal defense lawyer. Show me how this law has been applied in a manner that constitutes zn outrage and I’ll give it z second look.
And by the way, laws are written by 27-year-old legislative assistants, underpaid committee counsel, outraged parents, and lobbyists, just like they have always been.
Please cite the section of the Georgia law a blanket, pillow, 1/2 a box of crackers or empty water bottles are illegal.
could the presence of those item indicate that a person had been transported in said box? Sure.
Could those completely innocent items (going out on a limb here, I am assuming that Georgia has not outlawed any of those items) be more likely explained away due to totally innocent set of circumstances like maybe the guy went camping the prior weekend.
But the way this law is written if Deputy Bubba takes a dislike to you, you are fucked.
I’m sympathetic to your view that this is overly broad. But it’s also pretty ordinary as such laws go, in outlining a broad category of items which are illegal only if shown to be used in criminal activity. Your concealed toolbox isn’t illegal as long as you can convince the judge that it’s got a lawful purpose. Having reasonable judges in cases like this is important; but in front of a hanging judge I’m not sure whether the absence of such a law is really going to gain you anything. (There was a recent thread about car-cellphone-use laws, in which the defendant found the judge unwilling to accept evidence from phone records that the cellphone hadn’t actually been in use, because there was no proof that the records related to the phone in question. This is perhaps a reasonable legal standard, but it sets a pretty high bar for the defendant. How does a tightly-written statute help if you can’t prove that you’re innocent?) It seems like the real problem, if the judiciary is not reasonable, is to replace the unreasonable judges, not to try to rewrite the laws so that they are foolproof.
Another example of this is “possession of burglary tools.” This rarely is written so specifically as to mean only lockpicks and the like; in California, for example,
Read that list. I’m sure you own several of these “burglary tools.” (Most of the items listed there are completely legal for public sale.) Except you don’t, really, since although your toolbox probably contains a screwdriver you don’t own it “with intent feloniously to break or enter…”. And a reasonable judge will probably agree.
It’s a hard problem. It wouldn’t surprise me if police pick up a lot more burglars in possession of their tools but not actively burgling, just by noticing them as obviously shady characters, than they catch in the relatively brief and secluded act of burglary. This seems like a good thing. And one hopes that most of the innocent people who just happened to be, e.g., walking around in the wee hours with a crowbar and heavy screwdriver can offer a reasonable explanation to the judge. But of course there’s the danger that some of them are innocent and can’t explain themselves to the judge’s satisfaction. And that’s not a good thing.
With laws like this the legal standard is probably some sort of balancing test: how many innocent people will it burden, and how many criminals will it catch? Balancing tests are never pretty, but in some cases I don’t really see a better solution.
It seems on some of these examples these “secret” compartments are not secret but merely invisible. I mean if a poster says, “this make of car has a hidden compartment” and everyone knows about it, how secret is it?
There would probably be a difference between a compartment the manufactuer installs and one the consumer has put in or puts in himself
Please cite the section of the Georgia law that says that these items will definitely convict you.
What are the other circumstances? Did the guy go camping the prior weekend? Or has he been making mysterious trips to the Mexico border? These kinds of things tend to come up in a criminal proceeding.
It seems to me you have little understanding of the concept of evidence.
I’m not a US lawyer and I’ve spent about 10 seconds reading this because I’m pushed for time but (a) don’t you have this bass ackwards, and (b) isn’t this a key point?
That is, isn’t it the prosecution that has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an unlawful purpose? ISTM that leaving aside the stereotypical monstrously biased hanging judge/biased jury (which I suspect exist more in folklore than fact) the prosecution is going to have a very very difficult time proving that something that could be a hidden toolbox in fact was, beyond a reasonable doubt, not.
