5 ms·

Alfred Anaya is yet another example of magical thinking about how the law works. Just avoiding certain words doesn't prevent rational people (in this case, a ju

Alfred Anaya is yet another example of magical thinking about how the law works. Just avoiding certain words doesn't prevent rational people (in this case, a judge) from concluding that he did, in fact, know what he was doing when he built hidden compartments for drug dealers. This isn't a guy who built one thing for the wrong person, but many over the course of multiple years. It blew up in his face, but that is the risk of working with very dangerous people at the edge of the law.

grej 12y ago
The bottom line is that what he did was not against the law. There are supposed to be laws written against activities that are prohibited, to prevent prosecutions based on the whims of prosecutors and other individuals, outside of the normal legislative process. If one wants to argue that this type of activity should be precluded by law, then that's a valid argument. That still doesn't put Anaya in jail however, because even if it were passed, ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. The bottom line is, Anaya didn't play ball with the DEA. They went after him to punish him for not cooperating, not because he broke any laws. It's a travesty and a scathing indictment of the current legal situation in the United States that he could even be charged with this crime at all in a state he'd never set foot in, much less to have a conviction against him.
- krschultz 12y ago
  "The bottom line is, Anaya didn't play ball with the DEA. They went after him to punish him for not cooperating, not because he broke any laws. It's a travesty and a scathing indictment of the current legal situation in the United States" Exactly. 10,000x this. The fact that 90% of charges don't go to trial means that the whole thing is rigged towards scaring people into accepting guilty pleas. If he had accepted a plea he probably would have gone to jail for a very short amount of time. By protesting his innocence - which he clearly believed - he effectively lost 10x more than if he had just given in. That is horrifying.
  - rando289 12y ago
    Afaik, it's much higher than 90%, more like 98%. Citation needed. And yes, it's horrible. The legal system is all kinds of screwed up.
- blatherard 12y ago
  Yes, there are laws against activities that are prohibited. These include laws against the distribution of heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana. The government established his knowing conspiracy to distribute these substances, and he was convicted! The system seems to have worked here. Certainly, he wouldn't be spending 24 years in jail if he had played ball with the DEA. Instead, he decided that his criminal co-conspirators were dangerous enough that he shouldn't play ball and instead risk jail time. ADDED: To elaborate, conspiring to commit a crime is itself a crime, and has been for a long time in the U.S. There's no need to worry about ex-post facto laws, as the parent claims. You can participate in the commission of a crime doing any number of normally legal activities, such as driving (e.g. driving a getaway car). Your intent to commit a crime is what matters. The prosecution established that Mr. Anaya knowingly assisted the drug smuggling operation in concealing its shipments, hence the conspiracy conviction. In addition, the physical location of Mr. Anaya isn't relevant to his prosecution in Kansas. He was prosecuted in Kansas because the criminal conspiracy involved transporting drugs into the state, using his modded cars.
- Natsu 12y ago
  It's the difference between driving people around and being a dedicated getaway driver. You might be a taxi driver all day and that's fine and legal, but if a reasonable person would know that they're helping criminals flee a heist, you can't just get away with pleading ignorance. Conspiring to commit a crime is a crime itself.
- dkural 12y ago
  I agree regarding DEA threatening, lack of rights etc. However, what he did is against the law - building compartments for drugs. He built compartments for drugs. The judge correctly decided that Anaya consciously tried to evade this law by use of codewords etc. all the while his client are traveling with 800K cash in hidden compartments, asking for smell-resistance, making trips to Tijuana. "Oh, technically, no one used the magic word, 'heroine'" is not a defense. He knew what he was doing. This is why you have a jury - to determine intent. His intentions were to build compartments for everyone, which he doesn't deny, and get away with it based on technicalities.
  - valar_m 12y ago
    However, what he did is against the law - building compartments for drugs. Do you have a cite for that? I'll just tell you. You are mistaken. Building compartments for drugs is not illegal. This fact is not in dispute. That he was sentenced to prison for it anyway is the reason for the debate.
    - jsmeaton 12y ago
      > Building compartments for drugs is not illegal. This fact is not in dispute. In California it is. Says it about 4 times in the linked article. The debate is whether or not he knew they were being used for drugs.
      - valar_m 12y ago
        Directly from the article: There is no federal law against building hidden compartments, even if they're made with the sole intent of smuggling drugs. He was charged under federal law. It does not matter what California law is.
    - eropple 12y ago
      Conspiring to smuggle drugs is illegal, however. And contributing to the commission of a crime is conspiracy. The law is not code. It is interpreted. It's not some shocking interpretation to say that, when you find yourself looking for circumlocutions and code words to avoid directly saying the word "drugs", you know you're helping drug smugglers smuggle drugs. Which is a crime. And he got rung up for it. (Which is not to say that the sentence even remotely fits the crime, but to say no crime was committed is disingenuous.)
- girvo 12y ago
  Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. A very important principle, however it doesn't seem to really be the case anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidd...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - blatherard 12y ago
    It is an important principle, but doesn't seem to apply in this case: * Distribution of cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana are explicitly forbidden by federal law, dating back at least to the mid-1900s. * Conspiring to violate federal law has been explicitly illegal since 1867. [1] The prosecution showed that Mr. Avaya knowingly participated in a conspiracy to violate laws related to drug trafficking. He wasn't prosecuted just for making "traps" in cars, but rather for knowingly making "traps" in cars for the specific purpose of transporting illegal drugs. [1] http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf

grej 12y ago

The bottom line is that what he did was not against the law. There are supposed to be laws written against activities that are prohibited, to prevent prosecutions based on the whims of prosecutors and other individuals, outside of the normal legislative process. If one wants to argue that this type of activity should be precluded by law, then that's a valid argument. That still doesn't put Anaya in jail however, because even if it were passed, ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. The bottom line is, Anaya didn't play ball with the DEA. They went after him to punish him for not cooperating, not because he broke any laws. It's a travesty and a scathing indictment of the current legal situation in the United States that he could even be charged with this crime at all in a state he'd never set foot in, much less to have a conviction against him.

krschultz 12y ago
"The bottom line is, Anaya didn't play ball with the DEA. They went after him to punish him for not cooperating, not because he broke any laws. It's a travesty and a scathing indictment of the current legal situation in the United States" Exactly. 10,000x this. The fact that 90% of charges don't go to trial means that the whole thing is rigged towards scaring people into accepting guilty pleas. If he had accepted a plea he probably would have gone to jail for a very short amount of time. By protesting his innocence - which he clearly believed - he effectively lost 10x more than if he had just given in. That is horrifying.
- rando289 12y ago
  Afaik, it's much higher than 90%, more like 98%. Citation needed. And yes, it's horrible. The legal system is all kinds of screwed up.
blatherard 12y ago
Yes, there are laws against activities that are prohibited. These include laws against the distribution of heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana. The government established his knowing conspiracy to distribute these substances, and he was convicted! The system seems to have worked here. Certainly, he wouldn't be spending 24 years in jail if he had played ball with the DEA. Instead, he decided that his criminal co-conspirators were dangerous enough that he shouldn't play ball and instead risk jail time. ADDED: To elaborate, conspiring to commit a crime is itself a crime, and has been for a long time in the U.S. There's no need to worry about ex-post facto laws, as the parent claims. You can participate in the commission of a crime doing any number of normally legal activities, such as driving (e.g. driving a getaway car). Your intent to commit a crime is what matters. The prosecution established that Mr. Anaya knowingly assisted the drug smuggling operation in concealing its shipments, hence the conspiracy conviction. In addition, the physical location of Mr. Anaya isn't relevant to his prosecution in Kansas. He was prosecuted in Kansas because the criminal conspiracy involved transporting drugs into the state, using his modded cars.
Natsu 12y ago
It's the difference between driving people around and being a dedicated getaway driver. You might be a taxi driver all day and that's fine and legal, but if a reasonable person would know that they're helping criminals flee a heist, you can't just get away with pleading ignorance. Conspiring to commit a crime is a crime itself.
dkural 12y ago
I agree regarding DEA threatening, lack of rights etc. However, what he did is against the law - building compartments for drugs. He built compartments for drugs. The judge correctly decided that Anaya consciously tried to evade this law by use of codewords etc. all the while his client are traveling with 800K cash in hidden compartments, asking for smell-resistance, making trips to Tijuana. "Oh, technically, no one used the magic word, 'heroine'" is not a defense. He knew what he was doing. This is why you have a jury - to determine intent. His intentions were to build compartments for everyone, which he doesn't deny, and get away with it based on technicalities.
- valar_m 12y ago
  However, what he did is against the law - building compartments for drugs. Do you have a cite for that? I'll just tell you. You are mistaken. Building compartments for drugs is not illegal. This fact is not in dispute. That he was sentenced to prison for it anyway is the reason for the debate.
  - jsmeaton 12y ago
    > Building compartments for drugs is not illegal. This fact is not in dispute. In California it is. Says it about 4 times in the linked article. The debate is whether or not he knew they were being used for drugs.
    - valar_m 12y ago
      Directly from the article: There is no federal law against building hidden compartments, even if they're made with the sole intent of smuggling drugs. He was charged under federal law. It does not matter what California law is.
  - eropple 12y ago
    Conspiring to smuggle drugs is illegal, however. And contributing to the commission of a crime is conspiracy. The law is not code. It is interpreted. It's not some shocking interpretation to say that, when you find yourself looking for circumlocutions and code words to avoid directly saying the word "drugs", you know you're helping drug smugglers smuggle drugs. Which is a crime. And he got rung up for it. (Which is not to say that the sentence even remotely fits the crime, but to say no crime was committed is disingenuous.)
girvo 12y ago
Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. A very important principle, however it doesn't seem to really be the case anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidd...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- blatherard 12y ago
  It is an important principle, but doesn't seem to apply in this case: * Distribution of cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana are explicitly forbidden by federal law, dating back at least to the mid-1900s. * Conspiring to violate federal law has been explicitly illegal since 1867. [1] The prosecution showed that Mr. Avaya knowingly participated in a conspiracy to violate laws related to drug trafficking. He wasn't prosecuted just for making "traps" in cars, but rather for knowingly making "traps" in cars for the specific purpose of transporting illegal drugs. [1] http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf