gravyboy77 Posted September 27, 2006 at 01:16 PM Posted September 27, 2006 at 01:16 PM Court protects secret compartments in cars September 27, 2006BY STEVE PATTERSON Staff Reporter For the last six years, anyone driving a vehicle with a secret compartment built into it was committing a felony.Tuesday, the Appellate Court of Illinois declared that law unconstitutional -- saying that while it was intended to deter people from hiding guns and drugs in a car, it was written so broadly, anyone could be charged with violating it. At issue was the 2004 conviction of repeat felon Derrick Carpenter, arrested by Chicago police after officers found a BB gun in the airbag compartment of the van he was in. Hidden BB gun The airbag was gone, creating a "secret compartment."But because it's legal to carry a BB gun, Carpenter, 22, could only be charged with violating the state's secret compartment statute -- a conviction for which Judge Bertina Lampkin sentenced him to two years in prison. Used to fight drug crimes While praising the "salutary goals" the Legislature had in creating the law, "it goes far beyond criminal purpose" and fails to recognize that "whether the item is cash, jewelry, a risque magazine, a confidential file or a BB gun, the owner or driver has the right to keep it from prying eyes," Justice Warren Wolfson wrote in the 3-0 court ruling.State appellate defender Pamela Rubeo, who represented Carpenter, said "it struck me as odd that you could be driving a car with a secret compartment with nothing in it and still be committing a class 4 felony." Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who helped sponsor the law, called it "an important law for fighting drug crimes and protecting the lives of police officers" and said she will now confer with prosecutors.
45superman Posted September 27, 2006 at 01:58 PM Posted September 27, 2006 at 01:58 PM I had never heard of such a law. That law goes well beyond draconian, and into insane.
anonymous too Posted September 27, 2006 at 02:08 PM Posted September 27, 2006 at 02:08 PM It went into effect a couple of years ago. Daley was so proud of his idea that day. I didn't realize it was written so broad.
SmershAgent Posted September 27, 2006 at 02:11 PM Posted September 27, 2006 at 02:11 PM It went into effect a couple of years ago. Daley was so proud of his idea that day. I didn't realize it was written so broad. The whole concept is outlandish. What's to stop them from legislating that it's illegal to have secret compartments in your home? They'd have a real dilemma trying to reconcile "safe-storage" laws concerning firearms with the idea that they need to be stored in plain site, so as to protect law enforcement...
gravyboy77 Posted September 27, 2006 at 02:27 PM Author Posted September 27, 2006 at 02:27 PM How convienient it is for the police to charge someone with a class 4 felony. Imagine how easy it would be to target lawful gun owners with this law.......No wonder daley liked it.
anonymous too Posted September 27, 2006 at 02:43 PM Posted September 27, 2006 at 02:43 PM The "theory" was to prevent gang-bangers from having hidden places in their vechicles to transport drugs. The city had claimed to have seen some very elaborate designs built into dashes, seats, etc. that were almost undetectable. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's why the law flew past under the radar screen unless you happened to see the evening news in Chicago that night.
45superman Posted September 27, 2006 at 02:52 PM Posted September 27, 2006 at 02:52 PM On a side note, when the police find a compartment, it's not particulalry "secret," is it?
Ol'Coach Posted September 27, 2006 at 03:11 PM Posted September 27, 2006 at 03:11 PM On a side not, when the police find a compartment......and what cause would provide justification for the search?
anonymous too Posted September 27, 2006 at 04:43 PM Posted September 27, 2006 at 04:43 PM ...and what cause would provide justification for the search? Think what the law was really intended. If they have prior convictions, gang member status is also on their record. The dispatcher relays it back to the officer. That probably gives the officer enough cause.
Trefilov22 Posted September 29, 2006 at 03:30 PM Posted September 29, 2006 at 03:30 PM It went into effect a couple of years ago. Daley was so proud of his idea that day. I didn't realize it was written so broad.The whole concept is outlandish. What's to stop them from legislating that it's illegal to have secret compartments in your home? They'd have a real dilemma trying to reconcile "safe-storage" laws concerning firearms with the idea that they need to be stored in plain site, so as to protect law enforcement... my old S10, on the side panel, you can remove part of it and put stuff in t here, i used to hide booze in there, i guess i could have been a felon. heck if you have a car now adays that you buy and don't know where any hidden space may be, you can still be a felon. thats extremely dumb
anonymous too Posted September 29, 2006 at 04:27 PM Posted September 29, 2006 at 04:27 PM my old S10, on the side panel, you can remove part of it and put stuff in t here, i used to hide booze in there I take it you were under 21 at the time?
lockman Posted September 29, 2006 at 05:55 PM Posted September 29, 2006 at 05:55 PM Either that or Trefilov22 is really old and it was a custom compartment in a model A. If this is the case Tref did you have a compartment for your Thompson too?
lockman Posted April 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM Posted April 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM The Illinois Supreme Court in a unanimous decision has upheld the appellate court's striking Illinois secret compartment law. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/courier...OILL_S1.article Ban on secret compartments in cars tossed April 18, 2008BY JOHN O'CONNOR The Associated Press SPRINGFIELD -- The Illinois Supreme Court declared Thursday that a state law banning secret compartments in cars is unconstitutional. A unanimous court said the 1999 law meant to discourage gang members from hiding guns from police was too broad and penalized innocent conduct. Justices ruled on two cases in which police stopped cars with empty air bag compartments. During one, in Cook County in 2004, police found a BB gun. The other, a 2006 stop in Grundy County, turned up a large amount of money. "The statute potentially criminalizes innocent conduct," Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote in his opinion for the court. "The contents of the compartment do not have to be illegal for a conviction to result. In these consolidated cases, there was in fact nothing illegal found within the compartments." Chicago police pushed the law in 1999 because they said gang members were installing hidden compartments for as little as $1,000. Some could hold dozens of guns gang members could grab quickly, they said. The law at the time allowed police to seize a car if guns, drugs or other contraband was found in a secret compartment. But the legislation's Senate sponsor, Lisa Madigan, who is now attorney general, argued the law should be tougher to protect police. Madigan's attorney general's office defended the law before the court. Spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler said Madigan is reviewing the opinion and considering her next step. Ziegler would not say whether Madigan would seek new legislation to restore the law. A spokesman for the Illinois State Police was not aware of the ruling and had no immediate comment. Madigan's office had argued that the presence of a secret compartment indicates the desire to hide something illegal. The court scoffed at the notion. "Just as citizens are not required to display their worldly possessions to the general public, neither are they required to exhibit them for the plain view of law enforcement," Karmeier wrote. The case is People v. Carpenter. On the Web www.state.il.us/court
45superman Posted April 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM Posted April 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM Madigan's office had argued that the presence of a secret compartment indicates the desire to hide something illegal. She wants it to be a felony to desire to do something illegal? They'd have to lock me up for life.
Federal Farmer Posted April 18, 2008 at 01:57 PM Posted April 18, 2008 at 01:57 PM A unanimous court said the 1999 law meant to discourage gang members from hiding guns from police was too broad and penalized innocent conduct. From now on let's cite this decision with respect to gun control laws!
GarandFan Posted April 18, 2008 at 02:06 PM Posted April 18, 2008 at 02:06 PM I wonder if they would have considered a rectum to be a "secret compartment?" I understand that some people use them to hide illegal narcotics and weapons (among other things).
Matt H Posted April 18, 2008 at 02:15 PM Posted April 18, 2008 at 02:15 PM I wonder if they would have considered a rectum to be a "secret compartment?" I understand that some people use them to hide illegal narcotics and weapons (among other things). LOL...but i have never met you and i'm pretty sure i could locate your rectum without too much difficulty, therefore its not a "secret compartment" (made me chuckle this morning!)
spec4 Posted April 18, 2008 at 02:18 PM Posted April 18, 2008 at 02:18 PM This law shows the true face of Lisa Madigan in case anyone missed it in the past. I fear that when Blago is gone (hopefully incarcerated) she will be gov. She stikes me as being as far to the left as the rest of our usual suspects. The GOP will need a very heavy hitter to keep her out of the govs office. Absent a strong SCOTUS ruling, she will be real trouble.
Ol'Coach Posted April 18, 2008 at 03:15 PM Posted April 18, 2008 at 03:15 PM "The statute potentially criminalizes innocent conduct," Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote in his opinion for the court. As FF wrpte, we should take note of that!
GWBH Posted April 18, 2008 at 03:39 PM Posted April 18, 2008 at 03:39 PM A unanimous court said the 1999 law meant to discourage gang members from hiding guns from police was too broad and penalized innocent conduct. From now on let's cite this decision with respect to gun control laws! That is an excellent point - I see no harm in using their own laws and court rulings against them - we're just being honest and law-abiding!
gravyboy77 Posted April 18, 2008 at 03:44 PM Author Posted April 18, 2008 at 03:44 PM More taxpayer money wasted on a law that they knew would be struck down by the courts. The same thing happened with Blaggo's video game law.
Silver Guardian Posted April 18, 2008 at 04:50 PM Posted April 18, 2008 at 04:50 PM Excellent, this just further encourages an Idea I have. If they won't give us concealed carry, then we'll just have to carve out 20 exceptions. Just a few more months untill I'm able to own a handgun, hopefully by then I'll be prepared economically for the potential court costs. Anyone know the name of the winners lawyer?
Kenny Posted April 18, 2008 at 06:03 PM Posted April 18, 2008 at 06:03 PM Excellent, this just further encourages an Idea I have. If they won't give us concealed carry, then we'll just have to carve out 20 exceptions. Just a few more months untill I'm able to own a handgun, hopefully by then I'll be prepared economically for the potential court costs. Anyone know the name of the winners lawyer? I thought about making my point that way ahwile ago, BUT UUW is a felony. If it were a fine or a slap on the wrist it would be a different story. If you carry and get caught you have a felony, you can't buy guns anymore and they take away the guns you have. I have too much invested in my collection to risk it, and without guns I can't hunt or shoot two of my favorite passtimes.
highspeed Posted April 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM Posted April 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM An officer has to have probable cause or consent, and the one gets people "search incident to arrest", meaning if he is arresting you for something else he can search you and your vehicle. I have seen lots of time where the driver/vehicle owner gets pulled over and gives consent because he doesn`t know his buddy hid the dope in the car. There isn`t a spot on a vehicle where dope, money or both hasn`t been hidden. I have seen where dope was hidden in the air breather! It`s nothing but a nusiance to us law abiding citizens.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.