
Alfred Anaya Put Secret Compartments in Cars. The DEA Put Him in Prison (2013) - hippich
http://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/all/
======
blatherard
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
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.

~~~
girvo
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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed)

~~~
blatherard
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)

------
morgante
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.

~~~
merrua
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.

~~~
morgante
> 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.

~~~
scott_karana
Or they're in science, or engineering, or in a trade business where kilograms
are more common than Imperial units, or they're a recent immigrant, or they're
being silly because they want to _joke_ that they're a drug dealer, or...

------
tzs
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...](http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-
courts/ca10/12-3010/12-3010-2013-08-16.pdf?ts=1411095378)

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.

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
> 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.

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

What about Rohypnol?

~~~
akerl_
Woah, let's not bring up actual dialogue about the grey areas involved in
deregulating substances :)

------
blahedo
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.

~~~
rayiner
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.

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

~~~
blatherard
It is an important part of US law. In conspiracy cases, individuals may be
prosecuted in any district in which an overt act in furtherance of the
conspiracy occurs, by any of the conspirators. In this case, some of his
alleged co-conspirators trafficked drugs in Kansas.

In weev's case, the court rejected New Jersey as venue because no overt act in
commission of the crime occurred in New Jersey, since neither weev nor the
AT&T servers were in the state. The prosecutors argued that NJ was proper
since many of the victims (AT&T customers) were in New Jersey, an argument the
court didn't buy.

------
refurb
_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.

~~~
refurb
_...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...

~~~
blatherard
From the decision of Anaya's 2013 appeal [[http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-
circuit/1642115.html](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.

~~~
refurb
Thanks for posting that info.

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.

------
revelation
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
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).

------
jtuple
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
Tax avoidance is not illegal.

~~~
baddox
Tax avoidance is literally synonymous with tax compliance.

------
ipsin
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-...](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/16/199590/seeing-threats-feds-
target-instructors.html)

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.

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

~~~
destructaball
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

~~~
kelnos
And that's the difference. You are actively turning away people who you think
might be involved in criminal activity. Anaya attempted to be willfully
ignorant, but it's clear (to me, at least) that, from gathered evidence, he
knew exactly what his clients were doing with his work.

The sad thing is... the government _still_ could go after you if you --
completely innocently and without your knowledge -- sold to someone doing
something shady, and if they _really_ wanted to make it stick, it's likely
they could, or could at least intimidate you into doing their bidding.

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

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

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

