Well, I’m not any sort of lawyer, but as I understand it: Yes, in criminal cases the prosecution has to prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” (I believe that in traffic court, such as the cellphone case I mentioned, the standard of evidence is lower.) I wrote what I did on purpose, although I may be wrong. The part of the Georgia law cited above that Rick is objecting to says that a compartment can be inferred to be an illegal secret compartment if it shows evidence of use for these purposes; Rick points out that such “evidence” might comprise entirely legal objects.
So if Officer Bubba hauls Rick (a shady-looking character) into court, displaying as evidence the concealed “toolbox” with its water bottles and food residue, it does seem to me that the law allows the jury to infer illegality. Of course the jury is free to disagree, as it probably would if it found it reasonably plausible that the compartment was actually a toolbox. I don’t know how much countering evidence would in general be required to satisfy a jury of “reasonable doubt”; I imagine it depends a lot on other evidence of Rick’s disreputable behavior (with just the water bottles and food residue it seems like a pretty weak case to me, even if Rick provides no defense).
[No offense intended to Rick, who I’m sure is a fine, upstanding character, no matter how many California “burglary tools” he possesses.]
I’m wondering how spark plug pieces can be used as burglar tools, and if they can, wouldn’t it be possible to carry an intact plug and convert it on the spot.
You can use them to bust in car windows. Told this by my LEO father many years ago. Google/YouTube provides lots of links as to how. If you were found carrying them, and let’s throw in a wire coat hanger to boot, I can easily see enough for reasonable suspicion of auto theft by an LEO. At least enough for s/he to briefly detain you and ask some more questions.
Agree with Rick that it seems like a poorly written law at first glance; don’t have any experience with GA Crim Pro or Practice to see how the law’s actually used.
It says “ceramic or porcelain spark plug chips or pieces” if you can bust a car window with a porcelain chip off of a spark plug you are a better man than I.
bust a window with entire spark plug? Maybe, hell even probably. But do it with a chip off of the porcelain? I doubt it.
Getting back to the Georgia law the big problem here is even if I were found not guilty I had to spring for a defense and pay the law firm of Bricker and Oakminister a butt load of money to defend my ass due to a really poorly written law.
Where does it say that? If we are on the same page and are talking about the same law quoted by **ascenray **in post #11, then it doesn’t say that. I suspect what you are referencing is the examples given but they are only examples of what “may” be an illegal “false or secret compartment”. The prosecution would still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the purpose of the compartment was illegal. Very hard to do.
Read section B in its entirety paying particular attention to (4)
Takingout the fluff we are left with
(b) It may be inferred that the accused intended to use a false or secret compartment if a person knowingly has a false or secret compartment which:…(4) Shows evidence of the previous concealment of a person for an unlawful purpose;
Hence my comments about a blanket, two bottles of water and a half a box of crackers.
And what makes you think that that precious little list is per se “evidence of the previous concealment of a person for an unlawful purpose?” Remember, the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard still applies, as well as all the other standards of the laws of evidence.
Furthermore, the inference that’s explicitly stated as permissible in the statute is pretty much the kind of inference that is always permissible in a criminal proceeding.
I hadn’t seen that bit because no one had quoted it, but it makes no difference.
Firstly, the part you quote is relevant only to when it may be inferred that someone “intended to use” a false or secret compartment. It doesn’t alter the definition of a “false or secret compartment”. That definition has to be satisfied first, and satisfying that definition involves the prosecution showing an illegal purpose for the compartment beyond a reasonable doubt.
Secondly, the specific part you quote again involves the prosecution having to show beyond a reasonable doubt either actual unlawful use or that there had been use for an unlawful purpose.
So there is a double difficulty for the prosecution. The onus is on them to show that beyond a reasonable doubt the purpose of the compartment was unlawful and secondly (if they are going to argue intention to use) that it is actually being, or shows signs of having been, used for an unlawful purpose.
Now I must go do some statutory interpretation for which I will be paid.
IANA lawyer but reading the Georgia law it simply makes a hidden compartment a criminal tool WHEN USED TO COMMIT A CRIME. That doesn’t mean anything unless it’s actually used for, or there is evidence it was used for, a crime. It’s like saying a flashlight is a criminal tool if it’s used to commit a crime. It’s a way of adding additional charges to the same crime. Example: A person robbing a bank with a gun can be convicted of robbing a bank, as well as the use of a gun in the act of committing a crime. That doesn’t make guns illegal.
Where it can bite you in the ass is if you buy a car that was used to transport something illegally and you don’t know about it but it turns up in a search. If that happens remember to use the Ralph kramden “hamana hamana” when trying to explain it (for the dash cam).
Well, on my 1998 Honda Civic, I just need to put the ignition key into the little lock for the trunk release and turn it. Violà, trunk is completely locked. Could probably be pried open with a crowbar easily enough, but you couldn’t just pop the trunk with the release.
Oh that’s what he meant. I thought he was joking about not being able to kidnap people in trunks any more because of the inside-the-trunk safety releases.
Yeah, my last two cars had a way of disabling the inside-the-cabin trunk release. Both convertibles, so I always had that disabled.
It seems to me that the only purpose of this law is to pile on charges when arresting someone.
“Boy, if you got some goofballs on ya, you’re goin’ away for 10 years.”
“Sir! We found some goofballs in a hidden compartment!”
<Sheriff looks over his sunglasses> “Make that 10 years and 6 months.”
Isn’t you (rightfully) getting aquitted the sign of a well-written law?
I mean, if the cops and the DA have some kind of personal grudge and just want to harrass you, they can haul you into court for anything – well-written law or not. They might not have evidence that would stand up to an unbiased judge, but, as you said, you’ve still spent the lawyers fees. Still, the drafting of the law doesn’ t matter in that case.
And, believe me, no cops and DA’s have time to pursue some kind of thing that’s obviously innocent and harmless but technically illegal.
It’s more like, when you pop up on their radar, the DA has a dozen things to charge with instead of one. “We’ll drop the possession of burglary tools and the secret compartment charge if you plea to the breaking and entering charge…”
That’s how it’s been on any recent car I’ve seen with a trunk release on the driver’s side. On older cars, with the trunk release in the glove compartment, you could just lock the glove compartment so no one could get to the button.
