CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:32 pm
 


I'm going with Dayseed on this one. The cops didn't plant the drugs and these guys were very suspicious. While I pay lip service to their rights, I'm happy as hell they got nailed.
The fact that they took it this far is proof that their connected to some serious drug money. Boo hoo hoo.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3448
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:41 pm
 


I don't know if the search and seizure is unlawful. He started to pull them over for a missing front plate, realized it was Albertan, but as he was already in the act of pulling them over, he probably thought he should give some sort of explanation of his action, instead of waving them on. So he asked them some questions, - which cops always do - and their answers were suspicious. At that point, wouldn't he then have a legitimate reason to check the vehicle out?
Should he have just waved them on without any explanation as to why he flashed them?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8851
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:33 pm
 


:evil:
I'm gettin pissed off! Tried to 'delete' this particular post 4 times!

Where is delete this post?


Last edited by Yogi on Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8851
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:34 pm
 


martin14 martin14:

and Yogi, you have not had the pleasure of being pulled
over and then shaken down for money ;)



That would be a complete waste of time for the cops.

2 exwives eh!
:lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10732
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:32 pm
 


Yogi Yogi:
So, if I happen to be driving down the highway some day, and a cop is having a 'slow day' and decides to 'pull me over for the hell of it' and then sees that I have what appears to be fresh blood all over my hands, a machete on the seat beside me, and a bag of human body parts in the back seat, I get 'a walk'??? 8O Hooray for 'the charter!!!


If you're openly covered in blood, or there's a smoking gun or syringe in plain view, nobody's gonna give a shit WHY you got pulled over. Just like if you chop someone's head off in your front window with the drapes open, you aren't walking because there was no warrant.
Plain view. Search. 2 different things.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:44 pm
 


I'm not so confidant of that..

$1:
BOSTON - On April 25, Gregory Despres arrived at the U.S.-Canadian border crossing at Calais, Maine, carrying a homemade sword, a hatchet, a knife, brass knuckles and a chain saw stained with what appeared to be blood. U.S. customs agents confiscated the weapons and fingerprinted Despres.

Then they let him into the United States.


Image


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
Profile
Posts: 927
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:08 pm
 


Yogi Yogi:
So, if I happen to be driving down the highway some day, and a cop is having a 'slow day' and decides to 'pull me over for the hell of it' and then sees that I have what appears to be fresh blood all over my hands, a machete on the seat beside me, and a bag of human body parts in the back seat, I get 'a walk'??? 8O Hooray for 'the charter!!!


unless you kill the cop too


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8851
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:24 pm
 


herbie herbie:

If you're openly covered in blood, or there's a smoking gun or syringe in plain view, nobody's gonna give a shit WHY you got pulled over. Just like if you chop someone's head off in your front window with the drapes open, you aren't walking because there was no warrant.
Plain view. Search. 2 different things.


But isn't it the same principle? The cop didn't have 'a reason' to stop me in the first place!


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
Profile
Posts: 927
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:32 pm
 


Yogi Yogi:
But isn't it the same principle? The cop didn't have 'a reason' to stop me in the first place!


My neighbour was drunk, driving toward a RIDE stop. He turned around, in view of the cops and was pulled over and charged with impaired. He beat it at trial on that very point. Maybe he was turning around because he forgot his housekeys or whatever. No reasonable grounds to stop him, therefore inadmissible evidence.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8851
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:38 pm
 


Axeman Axeman:
Yogi Yogi:
But isn't it the same principle? The cop didn't have 'a reason' to stop me in the first place!


My neighbour was drunk, driving toward a RIDE stop. He turned around, in view of the cops and was pulled over and charged with impaired. He beat it at trial on that very point. Maybe he was turning around because he forgot his housekeys or whatever. No reasonable grounds to stop him, therefore inadmissible evidence.


We are fucking ourselves over allowing this point of law. The way it is now, the cops can only be 'reactive' rather than 'proactive'!


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42985
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:10 pm
 


Dayseed Dayseed:
And what hasn't been touched on is the cop's good faith and Harrison's bad faith. I'm kind of hoping somebody cares to argue that particular point, because there's an interesting jurisprudent argument to be made for it.


Such as ?

Not trying to be coy, just wondering.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42985
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:15 pm
 


Yogi Yogi:
We are fucking ourselves over allowing this point of law. The way it is now, the cops can only be 'reactive' rather than 'proactive'!


So society would be better off if they could kick in my door just in case I were beating my wife?

'Reactive' is the way they were chartered. They investigate crime. Prevention is in most cases, impossible. Giving them 'proactive' weapons is trading freedoms for security.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8851
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:37 pm
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Yogi Yogi:
We are fucking ourselves over allowing this point of law. The way it is now, the cops can only be 'reactive' rather than 'proactive'!


So society would be better off if they could kick in my door just in case I were beating my wife?

'Reactive' is the way they were chartered. They investigate crime. Prevention is in most cases, impossible. Giving them 'proactive' weapons is trading freedoms for security.


I agree with you to a point Caleb. As it is right now we have virtually tied their (cops) hands. Believe me when I say that I have had substantial interaction with law enforcement and still I feel that they need a lot more leeway. This of course should go hand-in hand with common sense!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:36 am
 


Dayseed Dayseed:
martin14 martin14:
Police can invent any reason to pull you over, but not notifying of rights ?

Thats a biggie.

and Yogi, you have not had the pleasure of being pulled
over and then shaken down for money ;)


I think you're looking only at the shock value of it. On closer inspection, if you don't have any expectation of privacy over something, nor do you claim any ownership of it, why do you need your rights read to you?

In this case, Harrison said they weren't his boxes and he didn't know what was in them. However, given the circumstances, it's pretty obvious he was lying through his teeth. Does Harrison's deception regarding the boxes at the roadside mean he should be read his rights anyway? If the cop then reads him his rights despite his protests, Harrison is stuck in a no-win situation. If he exercises his rights, he's given de facto notice of his ownership of the boxes. If he stays mum, which is his right, the search goes on and he gets nailed for the cocaine, but he has a defence at court.

And what hasn't been touched on is the cop's good faith and Harrison's bad faith. I'm kind of hoping somebody cares to argue that particular point, because there's an interesting jurisprudent argument to be made for it.



No, I think if the police want to do something, they must have at least the hint of
a reason to do it. I currently live where the police regularly pull people over
for absolutely no reason, they just sit and wait for you to come by.

It opens the door for the police to do all kinds of interesting things,
which I dont agree with.

Good faith/Bad faith.. How do you know the officer acted in good faith ?
How do you know the civie acts in bad faith ?
Doesnt that assume the police are always honest, and civilians are always
lying ?
sorry, not buying that...


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3196
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:18 am
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Dayseed Dayseed:
And what hasn't been touched on is the cop's good faith and Harrison's bad faith. I'm kind of hoping somebody cares to argue that particular point, because there's an interesting jurisprudent argument to be made for it.


Such as ?

Not trying to be coy, just wondering.


DrCaleb,

Firstly, you're never going to be satisfied if you keep believing that the search of the trunk flowed directly from the Alberta plate. It was the intervening terrible story told by the two that caused the search of the trunk. The pulling over and the search are unrelated. That's why the stop was in violation of S.7 of the Charter.

The reason I raise the good faith bad faith argument is that if you want to strip the cop of his good faith in searching the trunk because their stories stunk, you're going to strip all people of a good faith defence. If you ignore good faith, you're going to wind up in some bizarro comic-book world where the rule of law is absolute. Were you speeding on the way to the hospital to get your pregnant wife there to give birth? Too bad, you exceeded the speed limit. Did you kill a man trying to kill you? Too bad, a man is dead and you caused it. In both of those cases, there are good damn reasons for breaking the law and judges are expected to weigh those mitigating factors into their decisions of guilt.

The cop didn't spot two local assholes he hated and then pulled them over to plant evidence. He pulled over a car he shouldn't have and then investigated when he thought he serendipitously discovered a crime. His intentions were good; does that matter to people? Look at the above two examples and think about it again.

Martin,

Don't go to generalizations to sweep the particulars of this case under the rug. It does my points a dishonest disservice. In this case, I believe the cop. He discovered material evidence in their SUV. The two accused each told wildly different and inconsistent stories...how are they both telling contradictory versions of the truth?

To address your generalizations of always believing police and not bad guys, I quoted you R v. Land. If you don't know the particulars of that case, the police lied horribly in wiretap affidavits to get them authorized. The courts tore them a new one. I don't always believe the police, I examine each case as it comes along. Oftentimes they're telling what appears to be good, reasonable truth.

Just like our judges are supposed to do.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Strutz and 22 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.