Alfred Anaya Put Secret Compartments in Cars. The DEA Put Him in Prison (2013)

http://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/all/

by hippich • 12 years ago

122 104 12 years ago

blahedo• 12 years ago

This is the most disturbing part of this:

...he will likely spend the next two decades in prison for doing something that isn’t specifically forbidden by federal law.

He was prosecuted in a state he'd never set foot in, for doing something that wasn't against the law as contracted by people whose plans he did not know; and he was convicted, and sentenced to twice the term of the actual lawbreakers. That's not how the rule of law works.

encoderer• 12 years ago

I disagree. I think he was trying to be too clever.

The law in California, according to what I read here, is simple: building these things for use in drug activity is against the law. The reasonable man test is essential to the integrity of our legal system. And if you have a couple street thugs with $800k stuffed in their hidden compartment, a reasonable man would know exactly what they were up to. But they offered him more business. He gambled, and he lost.

Though I do find the sentence far too harsh. Give the guy 5 years.

LanceH• 12 years ago

They are only thugs if you assume they are drug dealers. You only know them to be drug dealers because you know them to be thugs...

sremani• 12 years ago

There is a joke among DAs "any one get a conviction for the guilty, but its takes a great lawyer to convict the innocent". Its mind boggling how convictions are used as stepping stones for personal ambition and the Prosecutors are getting more ambitious when throwing the kitchen-sink at some of the cases and of course more often than not Judge and the Prosecutor on same party and the defendants are in a up-hill battle.

rayiner• 12 years ago

First, there is nothing about the rule of law that says you can't be prosecuted in a state you've never been to. In this case, Anaya aided a criminal act that took place in Kansas. The fact that he's never personally been to Kansas is neither here nor there.

Second, the fact that a particular act might be legal does not mean that it is legal to do it in connection with a crime. There is nothing illegal about driving a car. There is something illegal about driving robbers in a car away from a crime scene.

Third, willful blindness is not a defense to any charge that requires showing knowledge. Anaya purposefully profited from criminal activity, and even if he didn't know the specifics of the plan, it's only because he purposefully tried to avoid learning of them. The law simply imposes a higher level of social responsibility than that.

Now, it's a fair criticism that drug enforcement is a waste of resources and drug sentences are too long. But that's quite a separate issue to the points you raise. Say that instead that Anaya was installing traps to help members of child prostitution rings convey cash around. The analysis of his involvement would be the same.

valar_m5• 12 years ago

I can't agree that the getaway driver scenario is analogous. The difference is attenuation from the illegal act. The getaway drive directly took part in the illegal act itself.

Here, Anaya never saw or touched drugs. He had no hand in planning any drug smuggling operations. He was never told what was going on, and had no legal duty to ask. That is not willful blindness.

I think a better analogy is the store clerk who sells rolling papers and blunt wrappers to the same people who never buy tobacco. Would you say that a store clerk under those facts is also guilty of a crime?

baddox9• 12 years ago

First, there is nothing about the rule of law that says you can't be prosecuted in a state you've never been to.

It's certainly strongly implied. "Rule of law" implies that governments have clear geographic borders. It's ludicrous to suggest that every person must obey every law that exists anywhere in the world or fear prosecution.

NickNameNick• 12 years ago

I thought venue was a huge part of US law. Wasn't that how Weev's conviction got overturned?

blatherard8• 12 years ago

He was prosecuted in a state he'd never set foot in

He was prosecuted for criminal conspiracy in an interstate crime. One end of that crime was Kansas. His physical location when he engaged in the conspiracy is immaterial.

for doing something that wasn't against the law

criminal conspiracy is against the law. You can take almost any "legal" activity and make the doing of it an element of a crime. For example, saying "Yes" is not explicitly illegal. However, saying "yes" in answer to the question "Would you kill this guy for ten thousand dollars?" would be an element of the crime.

as contracted by people whose plans he did not know

Except for the fact that he was selling them secret compartments, witnessed one stuffed full of almost a million dollars in cash, and continued doing business with them. Plus, "avoiding talk of illegality" indicates that he knew what service he was really providing.

and he was convicted, and sentenced to twice the term of the actual lawbreakers

He engaged in a criminal conspiracy, so he was also an actual lawbreaker. His sentence was very harsh though, agreed, but he was knowingly engaging in a commercial enterprise that assisted criminals for a number of years.

That's not how the rule of law works.

Yeah, actually it is. A judge and jury in this case looked at the overall pattern of facts and correctly determined that this guy was aiding people in breaking the law. That's how the law works.

Its unfortunate that a guy who clearly had developed some interesting skills and otherwise had a kind of messed-up life ended up where he got. But this is not the fault of the criminal justice system, or prosecutors gone wild. This is a guy who made some really stupid choices and got caught.

jmckib• 12 years ago

Except for the fact that he was selling them secret compartments, witnessed one stuffed full of almost a million dollars in cash, and continued doing business with them.

Is having large amounts of cash illegal now? I still don't see where this guy actually broke the law.

krschultz4• 12 years ago

So is a flight instructor responsible if the guy he is training is most likely intending to buy a Cessna and smuggle cocaine in from Mexico?

Even if I agree with you that he is guilty of conspiracy, the sentence is bananas. Someone I went to high school literally killed 2 people and got a shorter prison sentence than this. If this is the law working, something is completely wrong. I can't fathom how any non-violent, effectively victimless offense, can warrant 2 decades in prison.

rodgerd• 12 years ago

This is the most disturbing part of this:
> ...he will likely spend the next two decades in prison for doing something that isn’t specifically forbidden by federal law.

Do you feel, then, that it's a victory that investment bankers have never served a day in the wake of the GFC?

discardorama• 12 years ago

I don't know why, but I saw parallels with the Aaron Schwartz case.

scintill76• 12 years ago

Mainly just that HN is split on whether to vehemently support or vehemently despise.

sitkack• 12 years ago

The gov hates intelligence that doesn't bow to it.

revelation• 12 years ago

Such is the nature of the war on drugs. It starts with outlawing drugs, and as the tentacles spread, you have laws on drug paraphernalia (basically, laws against whatever we deem illegal, subject to change without notice), millions of wiretaps and cases like United States versus a bucket load of cash. All in the name of the cause.

abstrakraft• 12 years ago

There will always be legal loopholes that allow federal prosecutors to try someone in a state in which they never set foot, and they'll always have the funds to put together a pro team that's smart enough to convince a jury that you're worse than Hitler because they're the friggin' federal gov't, and even if you aren't already bankrupt, they can freeze your accounts so you can't pay your own team.

The fundamental problem is their incentive for doing this, which is based entirely on convictions and time behind bars, and has nothing to do with fairness. I don't claim to know what the _right_ basis for prosecutor incentive is, but I do know that if it's throwing people in jail, we end up with a lot more people in jail (which has happened/is happening in the US).

blatherard8• 12 years ago

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• 12 years 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.

krschultz4• 12 years 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.

blatherard8• 12 years 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• 12 years 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• 12 years 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.

girvo• 12 years 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_forbidd...

refurb5• 12 years ago

He was initially denied bail, in part because an illegal assault rifle and a bulletproof vest had been discovered in his house during a police search.

Lovely. This "illegal assault rifle" was likely only cosmetically different than a completely legal rifle. Hell, that rifle is probably legal in most of the other 50 states.

And who cares about a bullet proof vest? Or are those illegal in CA?

The guy certainly isn't a saint, but holy crap this is a great example of the gov't punishing someone using confusing laws against victimless crimes when they can't nail him for what he's actually doing because it's legal.

refurb5• 12 years ago

...when Anaya had glimpsed more than $800,000 in cash. The prosecutor contended that seeing such a large sum was tantamount to seeing drugs, since Anaya surely must have deduced the source of the money.

Wow! It just gets better!

What next? If a friend buys an expensive car when I know he has a low paying job, am I guilty of not turning in a "drug dealer"?

Even if you don't think drugs should be legal, it should be abundantly clear that the War on Drugs has resulted in a significant loss of individual rights.

This article really ruined by evening...

blatherard8• 12 years ago

From the decision of Anaya's 2013 appeal [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1642115.html], here's a synopsis of the evidence that swayed the jury to believe he knew what he was doing. Its not just the 800K.

3. Sufficient Evidence of Knowledge

At trial, the Government presented evidence that Mr. Anaya

• built multiple hidden compartments in vehicles for the DTO that were insulated to mask the smell of drugs;

• witnessed $800,000 in one of his compartments in a DTO vehicle;

• used “kilos” as a unit of measurement for building compartments;

• communicated by phone with the DTO through a secret code to discuss compartment sizes; and

• warned Mr. Crow not to discuss the compartments or how they worked with anyone to avoid police detection.

x0x07• 12 years ago

I generally come down strongly on the side civil liberties, but they don't become involved in this case. Anaya knew exactly what his clients where using the compartments for; even asking them not to tell him makes that clear. That's the equivalent of clamping your hands over your ears and singing "lalala". He knew. He kept building them anyway, using them to subsidize his other business. Conscious avoidance does not protect you from the law.

When confronted with the knowledge -- $800k IN CASH -- he then charged more than his normal amount to fix it. Again, don't be bloody daft. That's a decent middle-class net worth, in cash, concealed in a car. Unless someone's a billionaire, there's no reason to have that type of walking money besides illicit drug sales.

Any reasonable person would know what was going on, and in fact, Anaya did. That's why he's in jail.

As for your, well, stupid friend example -- you need to do more than just know. You need to actively aid. Which Anaya did! If you have a friend with a low-paying job and far too much money, I'd advise you to avoid holding "packages" for him, or installing concealed compartments for him, or straw-purchasing weapons for him. Again, don't be deliberately obtuse.

edit: One more point. Anaya's calculated ignorance is like Goodell and the videotape. The only way goodell didn't see that videotape is he didn't want to, and the only way Anaya wasn't confronted with exactly what his customers where doing was he actively avoided it. Also -- as mentioned elsewhere -- the compartments were insulated for odor? Come up with a legit use for that.

aftbit• 12 years ago

the War on Drugs has resulted in a significant loss of individual rights.

Absolutely. Besides the outrageous sentence for someone who never personally participated in violence, and the injustice of prosecutorial discretion in a world with too many and too complex laws, the war on drugs has led to a presumption of guilt.

Look at the growth in civil asset forfeiture for an example. If the police stop you with large amounts of cash, they can seize it, and then force you to prove the source of the money. Or even the anti-money-laundering restrictions, where withdrawing more than $10,000 from the bank triggers notification to the government.

Things like this are why I'm so pro-cryptocurrency. I think Bitcoin and its ilk have some serious issues today, but I also feel that an open method of money transmission is necessary for a free society.

destructaball2• 12 years ago

I run a reasonably successful service buying and selling Bitcoins for cash, an act which is completely legal where I live. I have absolutely no idea where my clients get their Bitcoins or what they use them for and there no way I could find out. It isn't inconceivable that some of these people are using the coins I sell to commit crimes or that the ones I buy are the proceeds of crime. I always fear I could be a victim of this kind of overzealous prosecution for running a legitimate business and it causes a chilling effect in my industry

chm• 12 years ago

Because you acknowledge the possibility, the question is now: Do you practice due diligence? It's easy to point the finger.

destructaball2• 12 years ago

I have on a few occasions refused to sell Bitcoins to people. One time a man brought $5,000 of crumpled bills in a carrier bag and I told him to take a hike and never try to buy from me again. I refuse to sell to anyone who tells me they're going to use the Bitcoins to buy drugs and I try to buy directly from miners.

I'm doing everything I can reasonably do because I really don't want to get involved with criminals, but all of these safeguards are trivial to sidestep

morgante2• 12 years ago

This thread is a sad reminder of just how irrational HN has gotten when it comes to the government.

Yes, the war on drugs is probably unnecessary and ill-conceived. And no, it's not illegal to put a secret compartment in your car.

But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal and engaged in criminal conspiracy to traffic narcotics. He quoted the capacity of his compartments in "kilos." He witnessed $800,000 in the compartment and subsequently increased his rates specifically because he knew it was a shady affair. Most damningly, he tried to isolate himself from information (if you don't suspect a client of being a criminal, you don't instruct them to avoid talking of their usage). In what world is someone who willfully helps drug dealers to conceal drugs not an accomplice?

Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?

Also, the Wired editorializing is way off base. If you are truly operating in an information void from your clients (without suspecting them of being criminals), that's not illegal. (Toyota can't be prosecuted for drug trafficking just because some drug dealers use it for that.) But when you have a personal relationship with clients who make it pretty obvious that they're engaged in criminal activity, you absolutely have an obligation to stop assisting.

maratd2• 12 years ago

Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?

I think this is more like putting the car salesman in jail for selling them the getaway car ... and that would be wrong.

But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal and engaged in criminal conspiracy to traffic narcotics.

You can say the same about every bank in America, which facilitates the same. Oh and probably every electric utility for growing all that weed. Water utility too?

I mean, it's not like they ask each of their clients if they're drug dealers or growing dope. They don't exactly look for the criminals either.

Probably because it's not their job.

RogerL• 12 years ago

I think this is more like putting the car salesman in jail for selling them the getaway car ... and that would be wrong.

They did not go after, or put in jail, the people that sold the cars to the drug dealers, because, as you say, that would be wrong. They went after the person that knowingly made it possible for the drug dealers to commit their crimes.

You can say the same about every bank in America, which facilitates the same.

Actually, they do stop doing business with you when reasonably believe you are committing a crime.

http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_25965517/reluctance-b...

downandout• 12 years ago

But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal and engaged in criminal conspiracy to traffic narcotics.

Obvious to whom? Neither having nor seeing $800,000 in cash is a crime. While he may have had reason to be suspicious, that is not what the law requires. There must be actual knowledge of illegal use. Professional gamblers carry this kind of cash and more all the time. They could have been on their way to a poker game for all he knew.

Most damningly, he tried to isolate himself from information (if you don't suspect a client of being a criminal, you don't instruct them to avoid talking of their usage)

You just indicted every criminal defense lawyer, and most accountants, in America. As officers of the court, lawyers are not supposed to knowingly make representations in court that they know not to be true. For precisely this reason, unlike in the movies, most lawyers will not sit down and ask a client to just tell them everything that happened; actual knowledge of certain facts could seriously damage their ability to defend their client. Instead they analyze the discovery given to them by the prosecution and ask the client questions as needed. Isolating yourself from information is certainly not a crime, and is necessary for many people in order to properly do their jobs.

blatherard8• 12 years ago

I posted this elsewhere in the comments already, but it seems relevant to the "obviousness" claim.

3. Sufficient Evidence of Knowledge

At trial, the Government presented evidence that Mr. Anaya

• built multiple hidden compartments in vehicles for the DTO that were insulated to mask the smell of drugs;

• witnessed $800,000 in one of his compartments in a DTO vehicle;

• used “kilos” as a unit of measurement for building compartments;

• communicated by phone with the DTO through a secret code to discuss compartment sizes; and

• warned Mr. Crow not to discuss the compartments or how they worked with anyone to avoid police detection.

valar_m5• 12 years ago

But when you have a personal relationship with clients who make it pretty obvious that they're engaged in criminal activity, you absolutely have an obligation to stop assisting.

This needs a citation for your argument to hold water.

Edit for the down vote:

You made a statement of law on which your argument relied. The burden of proof is on the asserting party. It matters whether the law does actually exists. There is no point in debating the law if what we're talking about is not actually a law.

NoMoreNicksLeft3• 12 years ago

But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal

A criminal in what manner? What act did he commit that harmed another person or that was in some way or another unethical or immoral? Whom did he cheat?

He isn't a criminal in that sense at all. He's a criminal for breaking a vaguely worded and open-to-interpretation law that seems unconstitutional on its face.

When the government writes a bad law here and there, it's just the inevitable mistakes that we hope will be eventually corrected. But when the government writes one bad law after another, with never a good one in between, "criminal" ceases to mean anything.

He witnessed $800,000

And? I find it hilarious how we've been taught and propagandized to think that money is, itself, horrible and incriminating. They have our bank tellers spying on us for the IRS, fuck, I don't even think you can buy a new car with cash without someone phoning it in to the feds. And whatever you do, don't dare drive out-of-state down a highway with money like that... cops are likely to steal it.

Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?

Apparently you're ready to indict the guy that sold him the car, and the gas station attendant that didn't call it in to the police when he saw them filling up the tank.

baddox9• 12 years ago

But it's patently obvious that Anaya is a criminal and engaged in criminal conspiracy to traffic narcotics.

Who's being irrational here? If a law is "unnecessary and ill-conceived," why is it irrational to complain about the law being enforced? I think that's very rational. I think he should be able to explicitly say, even advertise "I will create a secret compartment in your vehicle where you can put drugs," without risking any legal trouble. 24 years in prison is too harsh a sentence. Spending the night in jail would be too harsh a sentence. A $50 fine would be too harsh a sentence.

Do the people in this thread think that getaway drivers on bank robberies should get off scot free because driving a car is not itself a crime?

No, because laws prohibiting robbery and theft are reasonable laws.

akerl_5• 12 years ago

Irrationality is not a valid defense for violating a law. If a law is unconstitutional, challenging the legality of being charged with the crime is valid. But if the claim is that a law doesn't make sense or should be changed, the method for enacting that change is via the legislative branch.

Put simply: Americans have the laws they have because they were written down by the folks Americans voted for. We can debate forever about how we're mostly made up of sheeple and the election process is biased and all the other things that get in the way of pure, fun-loving democracy, but that doesn't mean we just get to decide at an individual level which laws we don't think are rational and then break them.

merrua• 12 years ago

They probally have enough information to convict him. But you know that Kilos is just how most of the world handles weight? If I wanted to put lets say a speaker or computer in there, id also be interested in what weight it can hold. If they actually wanted to carry money, they would also need to know as money is pretty heavy.

x0x07• 12 years ago

Dude is american. Outside of science, there are only a handful of things in America measured in kilos or grams. I'm struggling to think of one besides drugs. Certainly coke or heroin. Pot is often sold in eighths, while hash is sold in grams.

Nobody in America discusses weight of speakers, computers, or anything in kilos. Perhaps the only other place I've heard it used is for bumper plates. I'd frankly bet more than 90% of Americans couldn't tell you off the top of their heads if a kilo weighs more or less than a pound.

morgante2• 12 years ago

But you know that Kilos is just how most of the world handles weight?

Yes, but not Americans. 9/10 times, if an American is talking about kilos they're talking about drugs.

arh68• 12 years ago

If Bruce Schneier became aware that a drug cartel was using one of his crypto algorithms, isn't he too an accomplice? In what world is someone who willfully helps the cartel conceal their activity not an accomplice?

Do you really think crypto authors should get off scot free when their software is at the crux of criminal communication? They know exactly what they are doing, don't they?

isavix• 12 years ago

Apparently we hate the metric system so much using kilo as a unit lands you 24 yrs in prison

tzs2• 12 years ago

The article mentions he will appeal. That has happened and he lost. Link to the PDF of the appellate court opinion: http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/12-301...

Something is mentioned there that either was not mentioned in the Wired article or I missed it: Anaya admits that he knew particular customers were buying compartments for illegal purposes. He just didn't know what particular illegal use they were going to be put to. He's basically arguing that to "knowingly" join a conspiracy, you have to know its objectives and scope, and he says he lacked that knowledge.

It's probably a bad idea to do business with people who want to use code words when they talk to you on the phone. The appeals court mentions an intercepted call where Anaya told the drug traders he could put "3 speakers" in a Camry for $2,500, where "3 speakers" meant a compartment to hold 3 kilos.

His sentence is way too long. He's not the lynchpin of the drug trade the prosecution made him out to be, but he does not appear to be quite the innocent bystander Wired makes him out to be either.

NoMoreNicksLeft3• 12 years ago

His sentence is way too long. He's not the lynchpin of the drug trade

1. Drugs should be legal and sold out of liquor stores to anyone 21 and older.

2. His sentence isn't about trying to cripple the drug trade, but about punishing someone the government does not like.

3. The same motivation could someday be used to prosecute people who serve cheeseburgers to drug dealers at a restaurant under the theory that they were helping those drug dealers to deal drugs (you can't deal drugs if you're starving).

4. It won't be necessary to passed legislation so fucked up as that, existing legislation can easily be twisted to allow for such travesties, and judges rarely put a stop to it.

jsmeaton3• 12 years ago

1. Drugs should be legal and sold out of liquor stores to anyone 21 and older.

I agree (mostly), but they are not. Society has decided that certain drugs are illegal (for now). This point doesn't really have anything to do with anything.

2. His sentence isn't about trying to cripple the drug trade, but about punishing someone the government does not like.

How do you figure? Did they just pick him out randomly and decide to find whatever they could on this guy? I would probably think that the people prosecuting him believed he had significant impact in enabling certain drug trades.

3. The same motivation could someday be used to prosecute people who serve cheeseburgers to drug dealers at a restaurant under the theory that they were helping those drug dealers to deal drugs (you can't deal drugs if you're starving).

This is ridiculous, and completely undermines everything else you said.

24 years for building hidden compartments is a joke, even if he knew what they were being used for. Current drug laws are a joke. Governments enable a tonne of bad behaviour by denying people access to substances they want that rarely hurt others.

But making outrageous claims about serving food to a drug smuggler helps no one.

dsl• 12 years ago

1. Drugs should be legal and sold out of liquor stores to anyone 21 and older.

What about Rohypnol?

jtuple• 12 years ago

It's a shame how much inconsistency there is in applying the letter of the law in different cases.

Did Anaya suspect illegal activity with his traps? Probably. But, perhaps he doesn't agree that drugs should be illegal and was intentionally trying to sidestep the law as written.

That happens all the time for a variety of different laws. Heck, it's the cornerstone of tax avoidance techniques used by the rich and connected.

When Illinois tried to ban payday loans by prohibiting loans less than 120-days in duration, did that get rid of payday loan companies? Nope. Payday loan companies simply offered loans up to 121-days in duration. Was that sidestepping the intent of the law? Yep. But, they got away with it because they're wealthy and connected companies.

We should always strive for consistency in justice. Either everyone should be able to "get off on a technicality" or no one should.

Personally, I'm in favor of restrictive justice where people can get off on technicalities. It's makes convictions harder, slanting the system towards "letting 100 criminals walk free to prevent convicting 1 innocent". It also leads to laws evolving via legislative deliberation, not arbitrary reinterpretation via case law.

Of course, I can also live with the "intent of the law" crowd. But, please, can we consistency apply that to all cases?

maaku• 12 years ago

Tax avoidance is not illegal.

baddox9• 12 years ago

Tax avoidance is literally synonymous with tax compliance.

ipsin• 12 years ago

I think it's worth highlighting that, even if you think you are doing something entirely legal, when a customer mentions your product or service in the context of their illegal operation, you need to politely ask them to leave and sever the relationship, as a matter of self defense.

Take, as a cautionary tale, the case of people teaching other people to beat polygraph tests. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/16/199590/seeing-threats-...

Legal and interesting, but when a "customer" shows up and says "wow, this will really help me beat my government polygraph test", you're apparently supposed to know that that they're talking about an illegal act and that you're being set up. It sucks, but there it is.

Paranoia might lose you some business, but there are worse things.

Alfred Anaya Put Secret Compartments in Cars. The DEA Put Him in Prison (2013)

Related Stories