10 ms·

In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g. cash, jew

In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g. cash, jewelry, confidential information)

VectorLock 8y ago
Which states?
- arwineap 8y ago
  OH and CA both have laws on the books against creating (hidden compartment) or operating a vehicle with a hidden compartment if it's intended for something illegal. Drugs and guns is the common justification, but I wonder what would happen if you had say 15k in cash in a compartment.
  - smrtinsert 8y ago
    Dont. Excessive free cash is very typically seized.
    - djrogers 8y ago
      I don’t think we have enough data to say it’s ‘very typically seized’ - certainly it is at times, and in egregious and outrageous fashion, but I don’t think ‘very typically’ is accurate. I personally have on many occasions had well in excess of 10,000 on my person and have never had it seized.
      - lostcolony 8y ago
        And you were pulled over, and it was discovered? I mean, even if you were, that constitutes X data points, which is hardly representative.
        topmonk 8y ago
        You're asking him to prove a negative. The onus should be on you.
        mannykannot 8y ago
        Not at all - one can very reasonably assume that 'very frequently' means after it has been discovered during a traffic stop, in which case it is valid to ask how often djrogers has been in that situation.
        uxp 8y ago
        A mostly unrelated and offtopic comment: It's been a misconception that the $20 and $100 U.S. Dollar bills contain some RFID-like passive tracking capability embedded within the "ribbon" security feature. If you want to have an expensive and uneventful couple minutes, put a $20 in a microwave for a few seconds to "disable" the chip, but be sure to have a cup of water around. The foil-beanie wearing crowd claims that the result of the microwaving, which burns Jackson's face, is proof. Nevermind the actual fact that a majority of the ink on the front of the bill is on Jackson's face, and that the ink contains metal used for pigmenting and other proprietary security measures which is likely the reason it smolders or catches fire first. Anyways, the reason I bring this up is to highlight the paranoia of some that think that long-range RFID scanners can actually locate large stacks of highly valuable "untraceable" currency, which might be used by the highway patrol to identify potential targets to pull over for civil asset forfeiture reasons. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cache-point/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cache-point/
        gonesilent 8y ago
        The stacks of cash with the ribbon and magnetic ink can be scanned for. Think of those plastic and metal ribbon security stickers stores use.
        topmonk 8y ago
        His main point was we don't have enough data for the 'very typically' label. To prove this, you need some sort of data. Instead lostcolony was asking for evidence that this is not the case, implying that we should accept 'very typically' with no evidence, and expect proof of absence to change our minds.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Did police ever search you, find that cash, and not take it? Congratulations on your privilege. Lots of other people, including those without bank accounts or other means of moving their wealth around, have lost money this way.
      - pc86 8y ago
        More than $10k in cash is considered "evidence of criminal activity" in many jurisdictions. It's one thing to have a few bank envelopes with $10k in cash and a withdrawal receipt in a zip lock bag or something that's pretty obviously non-criminal. It's another thing to get pulled over in a $90/day rental with $15k hidden under a blanket in the trunk. The latter will almost always end up getting seized.
- x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
  * http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/12/09/secret_compartments_does_your_car_have_a_hidden_compartment_stay_away_from.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/12/09/secret_compartme... * https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/ https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/
- uxp 8y ago
  Ohio, California, Georgia, Illinois, and Oregon. http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/16/the-crime-of-having-a-hidden-compartment http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/16/the-crime-of-having-a-... http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2191-hidden-compartment-in-motor-vehicle-can-provide-probable-cause-for-search- http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2191-hidden-... https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-investigating-and-prosecuting-hidden-compartment-cases https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-inves...
downandout 8y ago
Interesting article about a guy who was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison for building hidden compartments for customers of his car stereo shop: https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/ https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/
- bnolsen 8y ago
  as opposed to people actually using those compartments in an illegal fashion. Out of control government...
- avar 8y ago
  From the article: > "calculated ignorance of illegal > activity is not an acceptable excuse" I.e. the court's argument is that he was perfectly aware that he was building these for drug cartels. If we take that judgement at face value I don't see the problem with this. You don't get to wink wink nudge nudge your way out of being a knowing accomplice to a crime.
  - sbarre 8y ago
    By that logic, shouldn't gun companies be prosecuted for the crimes committed by the drug cartels who use their weapons? Given the current state of affairs in the US and the publicly available statistics on gun crime, one could argue that continuing to manufacture guns is knowingly supplying criminals, no? It's a slippery slope..
    - pc86 8y ago
      A better analogy is an FFL knowingly selling firearms to cartel members, which is already illegal.
    - avar 8y ago
      That's absurd. The legal test is whether a reasonable person could have known that they were an accomplice to a crime. The article makes it clear that this man knew he was building these for cartels, and tried to weasel his way out by claiming he'd never seen drugs with his own eyes, but had seen almost a million in cash from some very shady guys. This would be like running a "Taxi service" that catered to Balaclava wearing gentleman exiting a bank, claiming that you had no idea you were helping with a robbery. Perhaps they're just really ugly businessmen in a hurry? Would that mean nobody could drive a Taxi anymore? Of course not.

In some states it is illegal to defend against civil forfeiture practices using hidden compartments in your vehicle to store 100% legal property (e.g. cash, jewelry, confidential information)

VectorLock 8y ago

Which states?

arwineap 8y ago
OH and CA both have laws on the books against creating (hidden compartment) or operating a vehicle with a hidden compartment if it's intended for something illegal. Drugs and guns is the common justification, but I wonder what would happen if you had say 15k in cash in a compartment.
- smrtinsert 8y ago
  Dont. Excessive free cash is very typically seized.
  - djrogers 8y ago
    I don’t think we have enough data to say it’s ‘very typically seized’ - certainly it is at times, and in egregious and outrageous fashion, but I don’t think ‘very typically’ is accurate. I personally have on many occasions had well in excess of 10,000 on my person and have never had it seized.
    - lostcolony 8y ago
      And you were pulled over, and it was discovered? I mean, even if you were, that constitutes X data points, which is hardly representative.
      - topmonk 8y ago
        You're asking him to prove a negative. The onus should be on you.
        mannykannot 8y ago
        Not at all - one can very reasonably assume that 'very frequently' means after it has been discovered during a traffic stop, in which case it is valid to ask how often djrogers has been in that situation.
        uxp 8y ago
        A mostly unrelated and offtopic comment: It's been a misconception that the $20 and $100 U.S. Dollar bills contain some RFID-like passive tracking capability embedded within the "ribbon" security feature. If you want to have an expensive and uneventful couple minutes, put a $20 in a microwave for a few seconds to "disable" the chip, but be sure to have a cup of water around. The foil-beanie wearing crowd claims that the result of the microwaving, which burns Jackson's face, is proof. Nevermind the actual fact that a majority of the ink on the front of the bill is on Jackson's face, and that the ink contains metal used for pigmenting and other proprietary security measures which is likely the reason it smolders or catches fire first. Anyways, the reason I bring this up is to highlight the paranoia of some that think that long-range RFID scanners can actually locate large stacks of highly valuable "untraceable" currency, which might be used by the highway patrol to identify potential targets to pull over for civil asset forfeiture reasons. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cache-point/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cache-point/
        gonesilent 8y ago
        The stacks of cash with the ribbon and magnetic ink can be scanned for. Think of those plastic and metal ribbon security stickers stores use.
        topmonk 8y ago
        His main point was we don't have enough data for the 'very typically' label. To prove this, you need some sort of data. Instead lostcolony was asking for evidence that this is not the case, implying that we should accept 'very typically' with no evidence, and expect proof of absence to change our minds.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Did police ever search you, find that cash, and not take it? Congratulations on your privilege. Lots of other people, including those without bank accounts or other means of moving their wealth around, have lost money this way.
    - pc86 8y ago
      More than $10k in cash is considered "evidence of criminal activity" in many jurisdictions. It's one thing to have a few bank envelopes with $10k in cash and a withdrawal receipt in a zip lock bag or something that's pretty obviously non-criminal. It's another thing to get pulled over in a $90/day rental with $15k hidden under a blanket in the trunk. The latter will almost always end up getting seized.
x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
* http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/12/09/secret_compartments_does_your_car_have_a_hidden_compartment_stay_away_from.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/12/09/secret_compartme... * https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/ https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/
uxp 8y ago
Ohio, California, Georgia, Illinois, and Oregon. http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/16/the-crime-of-having-a-hidden-compartment http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/16/the-crime-of-having-a-... http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2191-hidden-compartment-in-motor-vehicle-can-provide-probable-cause-for-search- http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2191-hidden-... https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-investigating-and-prosecuting-hidden-compartment-cases https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-inves...

downandout 8y ago

Interesting article about a guy who was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison for building hidden compartments for customers of his car stereo shop: https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/ https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/

bnolsen 8y ago
as opposed to people actually using those compartments in an illegal fashion. Out of control government...
avar 8y ago
From the article: > "calculated ignorance of illegal > activity is not an acceptable excuse" I.e. the court's argument is that he was perfectly aware that he was building these for drug cartels. If we take that judgement at face value I don't see the problem with this. You don't get to wink wink nudge nudge your way out of being a knowing accomplice to a crime.
- sbarre 8y ago
  By that logic, shouldn't gun companies be prosecuted for the crimes committed by the drug cartels who use their weapons? Given the current state of affairs in the US and the publicly available statistics on gun crime, one could argue that continuing to manufacture guns is knowingly supplying criminals, no? It's a slippery slope..
  - pc86 8y ago
    A better analogy is an FFL knowingly selling firearms to cartel members, which is already illegal.
  - avar 8y ago
    That's absurd. The legal test is whether a reasonable person could have known that they were an accomplice to a crime. The article makes it clear that this man knew he was building these for cartels, and tried to weasel his way out by claiming he'd never seen drugs with his own eyes, but had seen almost a million in cash from some very shady guys. This would be like running a "Taxi service" that catered to Balaclava wearing gentleman exiting a bank, claiming that you had no idea you were helping with a robbery. Perhaps they're just really ugly businessmen in a hurry? Would that mean nobody could drive a Taxi anymore? Of course not.