Behind the cat, obviously.
If they’re looking for, say, a Buick, is it still reasonable for them to search, force open or confiscate the safe?
No.
I’m not aware of those laws – can you cite one?
I am aware of several states that criminalize hidden compartments used or intended to be used to facilitate the unlawful concealment of a controlled substance. But the hidden compartment per se is not felonious – it’s the compartment and the use of it (or the intention to use it) to hide contraband.
Only if it’s a very, very large safe.
Of course, in the real world the search warrant will mention both the Buick and the proceeds of any sale or disposal thereof, i.e. cash, so they can take a safe of more or less any side.
He was arrested for having a secret compartment for smuggling drugs, even though none were found. (in it)
This article says the proposed Virginia law does not mention that the compartment needs to be for smuggling narcotics. Five years, $2500, and civil forfeiture of the vehicle. (Note the “civil” - they don’t have to convict you to keep the car, it’s “preponderance of evidence”. All the police need to do is want to take the money your car will bring them.)
I recall from another thread (or possibly another site altogether) that a warrant makes no difference in the eligibility of a safe’s contents if you open or unlock it for the police, even if you’re only reason for doing so is to comply with the warrant.
In other words, if you open/unlock the safe after the police present a valid warrant (and demand you open it), that safe’s contents are admissable evidence even if the original search warrant is later determined to be invalid/inadmissable.
You said:
I asked:
And your answer:
Quoting that link: “Gurley became the first person arrested under a new Ohio statute that makes it a crime to “knowingly operate … a vehicle with a hidden compartment … used or intended to be used to facilitate the unlawful concealment … of a controlled substance.”
I added the emphasis to show that the story talks about exactly what I said: not just a compartment, but a compartment and the intention to use it for contraband.
That was a proposed bill, not a passed bill. It died in committee in January. And the article is wrong (well, the proposed law adds “person” as well as contraband):
Well?
I actually got to see this in action. A few months back my neighbours had a close encounter with law enforcement (it was related to drugs). And the police found a floor safe during the search of their house. The safe was brought out on to the sidewalk and they pried it open with chisels and crowbars.
The point being, the fellow in Ohio was arrested and charged under the concealed compartment law despite zero evidence that it had ever been used for that purpose, other than the smell of pot in the car (which apparently was found on his person after the arrest) which also suggests he was not using the compartment. So “for the purpose of concealment of a controlled substance” is subject to very broad interpretation of the word “purpose”.
It reminds me of the case of the fellow who was arrested for a gun found under the seat of a car he borrowed. The policeman’s grounds for searching the car? (Besides, DWB) The fellow had a couple of burned CD’s on the passenger seat, so the officer used the felony charge of possession of counterfeit copyright materials for the purpose of trafficking - “if he had half a dozen CD’s in the car, he obviously planned to sell some”. Fortunately, the judge tossed that evidence.
The point being that an arrest can be conditioned on a level of evidence that would never sustain a conviction. A felony conviction must rest on proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to each and every element of the crime. But an arrest merely needs probable cause on the part of the arresting officer that the facts and circumstances he’s aware of make it likely that there is a crime in progress.
Your recollection was not correct: hidden compartments in cars, standing alone, is not a felony in some states now. Hidden compartments are a felony in some states when use of it (or the intention to use it) is to hide contraband.
You said there was “zero” evidence that the compartment had been used for that purpose. But why isn’t the strong smell of marijuana in the car evidence? I grant you that it’s not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt — he certainly couldn’t be convicted based on that. But it’s not ZERO evidence.
As well he should. The mere fact that he had burned CDs does not give rise to any evidence at all that the CDs were for “possessed for the purpose of sale, rental or transfer,” as prohibited by Virginia law (assuming you’re talking about Carmas Jonah McLaughlin’s case in Danville, Virginia in 2006).
What does one case have to do with the other? Gurley was legitimately stopped for a speeding violation and while he was detained the officer smelled a strong marijuana odor, which under Ohio law gave them probable cause to search the car. That search revealed actual marijuana and a hidden compartment actuated by electronic triggers, and the totality of circumstances supports probable cause to believe the compartment was intended to hide contraband.
McLaughlin was legitimately stopped for an equipment violation, and the officer saw burned CDs which he believed were evidence of a crime. But that was wrong, and the court subsequently suppressed the fruits of the search of his car that followed.
Sorry, my reading of the article was that NO pot was found during the car search, it was only found at the station, on his person, after the arrest “for possession of a concealed compartment”.
Therefore he was arrested on completely bogus grounds, and only then did a search of his person (based on that bogus arrest) find real evidence.
The connection would be that the existence of a hidden compartment, like the existence of burned CD’s, in neither case proves the intent or use of the item for a more specific crime.
OK, the proposed law(s) never actually passed but were proposed at the time. As the one fellow in one article pointed out, people may like hidden compartments because they are “cool”, and for other reasons unrelated to drug smuggling. At the time of the Alfred Anaya article, it was mentioned that several states were proposing laws against the mere possession of such compartments. My 85-year-old father had a glass hash pipe (because of the cute humorous glass-blowing it used), but has never had an intention of doing drugs; yet I assume that would make him a felon if the item were found with him in some states.
Incorrect. Cite.
See? No bogus charges.
Right about the CDs. And right that a compartment alone, with no other evidence, doesn’t provide probable cause for arrest.
But the existence of the hidden compartment, combined with the odor of marijuana and the finding of marijuana in the car, creates probable cause for violation of the hidden compartment law, because it suggests intent to conceal marijuana.
Anyway, if the cops demand the key/combination/password for your secure device, and you don’t know whether it is legal for you to refuse to provide them the key, my advice is to call your lawyer and ask them. You might have a legal obligation to provide it, or you might not, your lawyer will tell you.
OK, it’s dueling cites - the article I linked to says:
This also
Except my cite not only provides the dashcam video of the arrest, but also the PDF citation which shows the following charges:
And the incident report:
So this doesn’t seem like a very even “duel” of cites, does it?
Let me add one more spin to the safe.
Let’s say that I’m incredibly [del]paranoid[/del] foresighted and rig my safe with magnesium or thermite and a tamper trigger. The police or locksmith set it off well before gaining access to the interior and by the time they do, there’s nothing but ash and a bad smell.
Obviously their panties are going to be in a twist so they’ll charge me with something, but what? Assuming no injuries or explosions occurred.
Even if it doesn’t involve anything illegal like radioactive material or explosives etc. but merely something like spring-loaded guillotine blades etc. the safe would be confiscated and opened under a contained, controlled area and if it was found to indeed to have been lethally booby trapped you’d be guilty of a serious crime. It wouldn’t even matter if it turned out that all you had in the safe was the deed to your house, even on private property booby traps in and of themselves are illegal.