Hidden compartments in your car could become a felony!

[noxin]

I thought Illinois had a similar law and some guy got caught up in it, despite not having anything in the compartment, not having any prior drug related history, etc, etc. It's bullshit and just another way for the asset forfeiture to happen and to use as a bargaining chip to make a plea deal.

Hopefully someone in MA gets their head out of their ass and kills this before it gets any steam behind it.

 

[drgrant]

I thought Illinois had a similar law and some guy got caught up in it, despite not having anything in the compartment, not having any prior drug related history, etc, etc. It's bullshit and just another way for the asset forfeiture to happen and to use as a bargaining chip to make a plea deal.

Hopefully someone in MA gets their head out of their ass and kills this before it gets any steam behind it.

Legislative sloth will probably kill it the first time around but if it keeps coming back, then watch out...

-Mike

 

[doxdsgn]

Do we really need yet another law? This will be just another way to jamb people up, including innocents. If you get caught with drugs, illegal guns, etc.. why would it matter that you were hiding them? They were found. Are the penalties so inadequate on the original crime that a new law is needed to enhance the time spent in jail if/when found guilty of the original crimes? If that's the case, fix the sentences handed out, don't hand another tool that is too easily abused to the state.

 

[noxin]

Do we really need yet another law? This will be just another way to jamb people up, including innocents. If you get caught with drugs, illegal guns, etc.. why would it matter that you were hiding them? They were found. Are the penalties so inadequate on the original crime that a new law is needed to enhance the time spent in jail if/when found guilty of the original crimes? If that's the case, fix the sentences handed out, don't hand another tool that is too easily abused to the state.

Have to give the career politicians something to do to justify leeching off the tax payer.

 

[Spanz]

IF there are no secret compartments, and they can XRay the van to see what is inside, how the heck do you dispose of dead hookers now?

 

[sigfanboy13]

I will agree that is messed up. We cannot allow MA to write ours the same way, "operating a vehicle containing a hide". If it's not being used to hide drugs or cash or something then you really don't have anything. It could be the person had no idea it was there and should not be charged. Adding on another charge for scumbags trafficking heroin isn't a bad thing.

Ever thinking that a politician will write a bill clearly in order to protect the law abiding and not allow for more revenue is wishful thinking at best, and outright dumb at worst.

Ya cuz u know me so well right?
Again, nothing wrong with a hide for porn. Unless you start putting illegal crap in there for the purpose if hiding and transporting and get busted with it in the hide. Thus would have to be a charge added in when busted with drugs or something in there. Not just and empty hide. I see my argument is falling on deaf ears so why bother? If you like dealers and scumbags in your neighborhoods then don't support this. But don't complain when they're in your neighborhood "conducting business"

I'd rather have the drug dealers in my neighborhood than a statist who supports removing freedom because "drugs are bad/think of the kids" and thinks that the state having more tools to screw with the standard citizen is a good thing. As long as there is a demand (and there always will be), people will keep buying even if this terrible law gets passed.

 

[pastera]

The criteria is too vague, and while it could apply to an under seat locked box for gun storage as written, without the nexus to illegal activity this would be thrown out as being over broad.

Can you afford to get it thrown out? The bill is written such that the only thing needed to prove criminal intent is existence of a hidden compartment. Fight that in a Mass court and you're going broke on your way to jail.

(d) Forfeiture: Any conveyance containing a hidden compartment, as well as the contents of the hidden compartment, shall be subject to seizure by any city, town, or state police department and subject to the provisions of Section 47 of this chapter. Proof that a conveyance contains a hidden compartment as defined in this section shall be prima facie evidence that the conveyance was used intended for use in and for the business of unlawfully manufacturing, dispensing, or distributing controlled substances.

 

[Matt_SERE]

This bothers me for many of the reasons you all have taken the time to post.

Another example is the RV crowd that is on the road in retirement or for an extended vacation. Many have safes for their cash, passports, credit cards and other important items that may include prescription drugs. However, career criminals know the RV'ers may have a safe so the thief ask if there is one; or goes looking for it if they are breaking into the RV. The RV community has devised ways to hide smaller safes for the same items. Would this make them all criminals? Would it be based on the 'intended use' of the safe?

What a cluster,

 

[seraxmd]

They're supposed to prove you're guilty.

You're not supposed to have to prove you're innocent. This "law" is douchery.

 

[Ringworm]

The article is both factually wrong and misleading regarding the disposition of funds seized in asset forfeiture. The police do not keep all of it, and the funds cannot be used to pay police salaries (not that it was stated, but it was implied).

Here is a paper that I helped write for the Worcester District Attorney's office discussing asset forfeiture. http://worcesterda.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Prevention-paper.pdf

Yeah, because asset forfeiture has NEVER been abused, right?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/30/the-7-most-egregious-examples-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/
https://www.cato.org/events/policing-profit-abuse-civil-asset-forfeiture

Defending this bullsh!t is defending theft.

 

[In God We Trust]

THIS.

How long before someone decides that having a hide in your pants (formerly known as a 'pocket') is PC for a search by extension?

No, no, no & NO.

It's already been done. Some brand back in the day (FUBU maybe?) had a small hidden inside pocket in their pants. It obviously had little use except as a drug stash. There was an article released to police agencies about it and some minor uproar by the usual suspects

 

[vickers]

The article is both factually wrong and misleading regarding the disposition of funds seized in asset forfeiture. The police do not keep all of it, and the funds cannot be used to pay police salaries (not that it was stated, but it was implied).

Here is a paper that I helped write for the Worcester District Attorney's office discussing asset forfeiture. http://worcesterda.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Prevention-paper.pdf

I have a big problem with asset forfeiture laws like the ones discussed in your paper that basically force the person from whom the assets were seized to prove they are not forfeitable. That is not due process and contrary to the way things are supposed to work in our country. The government should ALWAYS have the burden of proof. These laws, while a good source of funds for programs and whatever, should only be allowed to go forward when there are convictions or at least a hearing with evidence presented of the nexus between the seized assets and the criminal alleged activity. The ends cannot justify the means! If the accused is found not guilty of the crimes, they should be made whole. This does not always happen currently and often innocent people's stuff is taken and the police/government never give the assets back. There are a lot of cases I have read about where people have to fight for years to get their money/goods back and often seem to have no recourse.

 

[Woodstock]

This bothers me for many of the reasons you all have taken the time to post.

Another example is the RV crowd that is on the road in retirement or for an extended vacation. Many have safes for their cash, passports, credit cards and other important items that may include prescription drugs. However, career criminals know the RV'ers may have a safe so the thief ask if there is one; or goes looking for it if they are breaking into the RV. The RV community has devised ways to hide smaller safes for the same items. Would this make them all criminals? Would it be based on the 'intended use' of the safe?

What a cluster,

You may have just named the folks that can get this thing killed. RVers in their Winnebagos need a safe, because the interiors are built out of compressed chipboard. My parents got ripped off this way at a beach in Florida when their old motorhome was parked in plain sight. Wallets, purses, licenses, credit cards and cash all gone, 1500 miles from home.

 

[Coyote33]

 

[E.Stoner]

I don't think I made my argument clear. I'm not against hides in general, just the ones these scumbags are using for their illegal crap. If a licensed person wants to tear up their car to hide a legal firearm, fine. A bit wierd and can raise some eyebrows and may lead to some questions to make sure everything is good to go but whatever. Which is why this needs to be written in such a way that only scumbags will be charged with it.

Well it's NY so I'm not surprised. That needs to change. Being charged and convicted/sentenced are totally different. That just reinforces why this needs to be written carefully.

HOLY HELL.

I am going to give this the benefit of doubt and chalk this up to some next level trolling. Well played, sir.
The arguments you have presented are so ass-backwards, that the water is draining counter-clockwise.
Seriously did a dingo just eat my baby?
But seriously lets make everything illegal that could be used to commit a crime, because free will totally isn't a thing and people are intrinsically evil.
I've never heard this argument before.

 

[Love Machine]

...I can't even reply to this without drinking.

 

[Obie1]

I sincerely hope there is a lot of trolling going on here

 

[JohnZ]

This level of X-Ray should not be used on a occupied vehicle. Note the lack of a skeleton in the passenger area of the sample image. But, the images on the vendor site do show someone in the driver's seat.

Backscatter x-ray was pulled from airports, probably because too many people (like me) were opting for the manual junk check.

I can imagine the reaction if you put one of these in your vehicle and fired radiation back at them...

ETA: Do any of the automakers offer the option of lead body panels? I imagine mileage would go into the toilet though.

 

[EC1]

is lead based auto paint available?

 

[Spanz]

I sincerely hope there is a lot of trolling going on here

Indeed!

 

[GlockJock]

This is just stacking charges. They already know what is in your vehicle....


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nypd-uses-...ugh-cars-houses-whats-under-your-coat-1524027
The X-ray vans have the technology to penetrate through the body of a vehicle as it drives past to see whether there are weapons, explosives or drugs inside

My main concern?....Dimples might confiscate my Honda CR-V as a "copycat" and have me deemed a felon until the SCOTUS hears the case.

I mean, with the way that Keolis delays every friggin commuter rail train, how the hell will I get to work on time?

Just sayin'

 

[rawlus]

One of my vehicles comes from the factory with an OEM hidden compartment under the passenger floorboard.

 

[browncoat]

One of my vehicles comes from the factory with an OEM hidden compartment under the passenger floorboard.

You must be a drug dealer.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[inkdesigner]

One of my vehicles comes from the factory with an OEM hidden compartment under the passenger floorboard.

Obviously, you must donate it as a target for the next NES group shoot so as to stay in comliance

 

[Hardwired]

Your vehicle is not in order.

 

[AntiHippie]

This is already law in at least a couple of states, Ohio and California. Maybe more, I didn't check.

It's already federal law in the United States of America. Has been for some time.

 

[browncoat]

It's already federal law in the United States of America. Has been for some time.

Not according to the fbi or this article https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[joseph]

They are legal here in Georgia. I built one inside of my center console glove box of my Toyota Tacoma. I only use it when I can't enter a government building where a gun is not permitted. I had a pistol stolen out of that center compartment and that is why I made it to stop someone from finding and steeling another one if I was broken into again.

- - - Updated - - -

Not according to the fbi or this article https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

What do you expect he lives in California.

 

[drgrant]

It's already federal law in the United States of America. Has been for some time.

Not sure if serious. Where is this in US code?

eta: browncoat beat me to it... lol

Guys like anaya though would have been charged federally if it was actually federally illegal. It's not.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What makes more sense is a safe attached to the vehicle. Besides security, it is harder to search without a warrant and the physical entry will make lack of consent obvious. I saw one heavy duty car gun safe at a show (I think Shot) that came with bright orange stickers to the effect of "Police Notice - Consent to search is not granted, warrant required."