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.

I honestly have no idea if he's guilty of conspiracy to traffic narcotics.

What gets me is this incremental loss of rights that is occurring in the name of the War on Drugs.

Let's see where we are now...

1. It is illegal to sell certain drugs - OK seems reasonable (if you think they should be illegal)

2. It's illegal to have drug paraphernalia - umm that seems like a stretch; so legal stuff is now illegal if it's used to administer drugs (i.e. a pipe)?

3. It's illegal to create hidden compartments in cars - now that's just dumb

What is happening here is that the gov't can't really control drugs. Sure they lock up a few big dealers (and a lot of small-time users), but nothing changes! So what do they do? Cast a wider net! Let's start locking people up who are only marginally involved with the drug trade. What will happen? Nothing! Hundreds of tons of drugs will still make it across the border.

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.

___once___, you did it once. Also, $3k < $800k+ cash from some shady folks. Also a boat is way more innocent than secret storage in cars requiring a digital incantation to open.

I agree that the punishment is unreasonably harsh. I would have given him a week in jail & 2 months community service as a wakeup call because he seems like a good man who wouldn't do it again. I'd also make it clear to him that a harsher judge could have put him away for years but I was giving him a break because I trusted him. But let's be real here: There's no way whatsoever Anaya didn't know what was up.

A single act vs 15+ a year.

Don't be daft.

Even if I did support making certain drugs illegal, unless they are directly dealing in drugs, I don't consider their actions a crime.

If the cops want to get drugs off the streets, then they should stick to going after the people who actually handle the drugs. That won't happen, of course, because they are losing the War on Drugs. They need to stack things more in their favor.

And who in the end loses? Everyone, as our rights are eroded day in and day out.

Pretending that criminalizing helping to commit crimes erodes civil liberties is somewhere between silly and stupid. Particularly to anyone sympathetic (as I am) to arguments that we should legalize most drugs and redirect those moneys to harm abatement.

Not exactly. And saying what will be is a little presumptuous.

Here's what you can find in the wikipedia entry about criminal conspiracy in Common Law:

"There was an additional problem that it could be a criminal conspiracy at common law to engage in conduct which was not in itself a criminal offence (...) Henceforward it would only be an offence to agree to engage in a course of conduct which was itself a criminal offence."

Or, in other words, it would only be an offence if making the tools that helped the criminals was a criminal act in itself.

As an (extreme) example of the problem of criminal conspiracy: you could end up in prison for giving/selling food to someone you know will commit a crime.

With this in mind, it's not really surprising to see people baffled by the possibility of being put in jail for doing something that is, in itself, legal.

Now, it might be illegal under the current US laws, but that's what's surprising. Most people expect to NOT be sent in prison for obeying the laws.

> Pretending that criminalizing helping to commit crimes erodes civil liberties is somewhere between silly and stupid.

Eh no, it's really not. It's pretty much the definition. By criminalizing an action, your are reducing the civil liberties.

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.

Asset forfeiture is an absolute travesty. There are numerous examples of folks who were clearly not involved in illegal activity who had their person property seized even though the gov't was unable to prove a crime was committed.

I think the worst part about the War on Drugs is the fervor it creates in it's supporters. Folks who on one hand will fight for things like freedom of speech won't even bat an eye at dismantling another right as long as it supports the War on Drugs.