[DerbyX]

What about this though?

$1:

An Ontario Provincial Police constable had no grounds for stopping Harrison and even lied in court about the incident, yet there's no evidence he was ever disciplined, Addario noted.

To me a police officer lying under oath about the grounds for search is more important and more disturbing then the coke found.

His act of lying in court destroys his good faith argument because it then casts doubt on his word that he had reasonable grounds to search the vehicle.

The courts cannot afford to take chances with a case in which police willingly lied on the stand because it does more harm to the justice system and the publics view of it then evidence getting tossed out for procedural errors.

[DrCaleb]

Dayseed Dayseed:

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.

I am a man of absolutes. Something is, or it is not. I guess the law confounds me sometimes.

In my mind, if the stop was wrong, then anything that follows is it too. I can see your point.

Thanks for the insight, that is why I asked.

[martin14]

Dayseed Dayseed:

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.

Dayseed,

Oftentimes isnt good enough. The police need to have a certain minimum
threshold in which to operate. If not, they will become no better than the criminals. If those minimums arent met, throw it out.

Heres what I see: a police officer violated the Charter: twice.

Which means either he doesnt know the charter exists,
or he doesnt care. Either answer would be enough for me to have his ass tossed out.
So what happens ? A judge rewards his behaviour, and sends a message to all
police that the Charter is now morally relative, and subject to personal interpretation.

Is that what you want ? Cause I don't.

I said before, I currently live where the police set up on the side of the road,
and stop cars randomly for 'inspection'.
Which puts the onus on drivers to prove their 'innocence', or compliance with the law. Do you want to have such a society in Canada ?

The particulars of any case where the police screwed up probably has
circumstances where people caught red handed walked away.
But, if you remove the principles by which the police work, then it will lead
to no one actually getting an honest trial, because the rules will change according
to each case.

We apply the Charter here, but not here, and its ok.... No, its not.

Well, the cop was acting in good faith.
a) I'm not there, so i dont know the cops state of mind.
Maybe his ex wife was from Alberta, and he has a hard on for Alberta people.

b)Too bad, they have rules by which they do their job.


YOU can examine each case, and decide if the Charter should apply or not.
I will prefer to have the Charter apply in EACH case.

Which is why this must be argued in terms of principle,
and not in terms of particulars.

[uwish]

DerbyX DerbyX:

What about this though?

$1:

An Ontario Provincial Police constable had no grounds for stopping Harrison and even lied in court about the incident, yet there's no evidence he was ever disciplined, Addario noted.

To me a police officer lying under oath about the grounds for search is more important and more disturbing then the coke found.

His act of lying in court destroys his good faith argument because it then casts doubt on his word that he had reasonable grounds to search the vehicle.

The courts cannot afford to take chances with a case in which police willingly lied on the stand because it does more harm to the justice system and the publics view of it then evidence getting tossed out for procedural errors.

OMG! I am agreeing with Derby!

[Yogi]

So to circumvent, all the cop has to say to justify the stop is " I noticed the defendant 'weaving from side to side, and suspected that he might have been impaired. After pulling the defendant over, with with the intention of confirming my suspicions, and after some discussion with the defendant...

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I don't want to live in a society where I can be randomly pulled over and searched

The truth of the matter is that cops do not just pull people over randomly. Profiling is a major part of crime prevention and intervention even though Utopian liberals are offended by it.

Would you like some tips on how to avoid getting pulled over?

1. (This is easy) Keep your car clean and in good repair. Dirty cars with dents are a cop magnet because the kind of people who don't take good care of their cars are frequently the kind of people who need to do business with the police.

2. Choose a 4 door car/wagon with a non-descript colour so you blend in with traffic. Cops will not necessarily notice a metallic beige 4 -door speeding on the freeway but they WILL notice the bright red/yellow 2 door coupe every time.

3. Don't make erratic lane changes. Signal and change lanes at a reasonable pace. Quick or erratic lane changes are a hallmark of meth addicts and people who are stressed - as they would be right after committing a crime.

4. Avoid putting bumper stickers on your car. You're just inviting trouble. Cops are conservative and liberal and if you have bumper stickers they don't like then if they have a choice of who to pull over they'll often choose someone they don't like anyhow. Excessive bumper stickers are a hallmark of the mentally ill and that attracts attention, too.

5. Don't have the front windows on your car tinted. Even if this is legal in your jurisdiction you still look like you have something to hide and cops are innately curious and they will often pull you over just to have a look-see.

6. Pay attention to the road. If you're distracted by a phone conversation or loud music you can inadvertently do something that gets you noticed by a cop. Tapping your hands on the wheel frequently results in your car weaving a little as if you were drunk and you'll get stopped so you can be checked out as a suspected DUI.

Hope that helps.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I don't want to live in a society where I can be randomly pulled over and searched

The truth of the matter is that cops do not just pull people over randomly. Profiling is a major part of crime prevention and intervention even though Utopian liberals are offended by it.

Would you like some tips on how to avoid getting pulled over?

..

Hope that helps.

I happen to drive a Ford 'Panther' product and the only time I get pulled over is when a cop wants to oogle over my car. It is always spotless.

I'm not talking about 'profiling' Bart. I understand what a good tool it is for them. I'm talking about giving them an open license to search as they see fit.

As Yogi points out, they basically can and do pull people over anyhow. I'm just hoping that my rights under the constitution and my right to privacy is still important to a judge somewhere.

[Dayseed]

martin14 martin14:

Dayseed,

Oftentimes isnt good enough. The police need to have a certain minimum
threshold in which to operate. If not, they will become no better than the criminals. If those minimums arent met, throw it out.

Sure. And in this case, both a trial judge and the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the cop's actions were above a certain minimal threshold.

$1:

Heres what I see: a police officer violated the Charter: twice.

Which means either he doesnt know the charter exists,
or he doesnt care. Either answer would be enough for me to have his ass tossed out.
So what happens ? A judge rewards his behaviour, and sends a message to all
police that the Charter is now morally relative, and subject to personal interpretation.

Here's what I see: You skipped over your whole argument that perhaps it was the cop acting in bad faith and the crooks acting in good faith. I refuted it. At least address that you're abandoning your argument.

Continuing on, I don't agree with your dichotomy of reasons why there was a Charter breach. What about being excited and making honest mistakes? What about tiny transgressions which at the time are lost in the shuffle, but become huge upon later amplification?

And of course the Charter is subject to a certain latitude of personal interpretation. Nobody can come up with clear applicable tests to say what detention is. How come the police aren't required to read you your rights when they pull you over for speeding? You've been detained, that alone should be enough to trigger your S.10 rights! But it doesn't happen. Your S.10 rights should be triggered if you're about to make an incriminating statement against yourself...so what black and white definition can you put on a question made by the police that is likely to induce an incriminating statement? How would one ALWAYS know when to do it or when not? S.8 reads that everybody is secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Do you have any clue how many conflicting cases there are as to what constitutes "unreasonable"? Is it a Charter violation to steal garbage you've discarded at the curb?

Unfortunately, your simplification doesn't allow for the multitude of gray areas that are going to flow from the Charter. One or two sentences describing a right leaves them open for a HUGE amount of personal interpretation. Then, at trial, the Judge will judge if the cop's personal interpretation was correct.

$1:

Is that what you want ? Cause I don't.

To address your above point, I don't want criminals to necessarily get off their charges because of inconsequential breaches of the Charter. What if there is a year long police probe into a multiple homicide and it turns out that along the way, the police got bank statements from a bank without a warrant, but never adduced them at trial? In your world, murderers go free for such an act. I don't want to live in that world.

$1:

I said before, I currently live where the police set up on the side of the road,
and stop cars randomly for 'inspection'.
Which puts the onus on drivers to prove their 'innocence', or compliance with the law. Do you want to have such a society in Canada ?

I don't care what your country does. Don't bitch about the Charter becoming morally relative and then bring up your worse-off country as a morally relative comparison.

$1:

The particulars of any case where the police screwed up probably has
circumstances where people caught red handed walked away.
But, if you remove the principles by which the police work, then it will lead
to no one actually getting an honest trial, because the rules will change according
to each case.

Your point above is moot. I've quoted you two cases in which police transgressions have resulted in the vitiation of charges against the accused.

$1:

We apply the Charter here, but not here, and its ok.... No, its not.

This just reveals a rather amateurish understanding of the Charter. An accused has to invoke his Charter rights and show that his rights were breached...it's not a Judge's job to be a defence lawyer. Secondly, when a Charter breach is found, the Charter itself rules on what the appropriate remedy should be to rectify the breach. It could be the quashing of a warrant, exclusion of evidence or mitigation of a sentence. It could be an acquital. But the Judge also has to weigh public opinion too. That's in the Charter.

$1:

Well, the cop was acting in good faith.
a) I'm not there, so i dont know the cops state of mind.
Maybe his ex wife was from Alberta, and he has a hard on for Alberta people.

b)Too bad, they have rules by which they do their job.

It's not my problem if you don't read the OCA's decision on Harrison's appeal. At no point did the defence ever challenge the reasons why the cop pulled over the SUV, they just said it was a Charter breach because it was arbitrary. If the defence doesn't doubt the cop's claim, why would you?

$1:

YOU can examine each case, and decide if the Charter should apply or not.
I will prefer to have the Charter apply in EACH case.

Which is why this must be argued in terms of principle,
and not in terms of particulars.

See above about why this represents an amateurish understanding of the Charter.

[Dayseed]

DerbyX DerbyX:

To me a police officer lying under oath about the grounds for search is more important and more disturbing then the coke found.

His act of lying in court destroys his good faith argument because it then casts doubt on his word that he had reasonable grounds to search the vehicle.

The courts cannot afford to take chances with a case in which police willingly lied on the stand because it does more harm to the justice system and the publics view of it then evidence getting tossed out for procedural errors.

I don't see in the OCA decision where the judges found him to have lied on the stand. That's perjury. What I recall them saying is that his articulation of his reasons was essentially piss-fucking-poor.

As a general rule, yes, police lies are shocking as fuck. That's why I've quoted R v. Land. If you think that what the cop did in this case is horrifying to the public, read that case. The Judge dismissed the wiretap affiant as telling lies wholly inconsistent with reality.

I'm not worried. I think that Judges make the correct calls and when they don't, there are two extra courts which will hear your case and correct the lower courts if need be. If the Supreme Court tosses Harrison's conviction, so be it. Their logic and jurisprudence on the matter far outstrips mine.

[karra]

Dayseed Dayseed:

DerbyX DerbyX:

To me a police officer lying under oath about the grounds for search is more important and more disturbing then the coke found.

His act of lying in court destroys his good faith argument because it then casts doubt on his word that he had reasonable grounds to search the vehicle.

The courts cannot afford to take chances with a case in which police willingly lied on the stand because it does more harm to the justice system and the publics view of it then evidence getting tossed out for procedural errors.

I don't see in the OCA decision where the judges found him to have lied on the stand. That's perjury. What I recall them saying is that his articulation of his reasons was essentially piss-fucking-poor.

As a general rule, yes, police lies are shocking as fuck. That's why I've quoted R v. Land. If you think that what the cop did in this case is horrifying to the public, read that case. The Judge dismissed the wiretap affiant as telling lies wholly inconsistent with reality.

I'm not worried. I think that Judges make the correct calls and when they don't, there are two extra courts which will hear your case and correct the lower courts if need be. If the Supreme Court tosses Harrison's conviction, so be it. Their logic and jurisprudence on the matter far outstrips mine.

Believe me, judges don't necessarily make the correct call(s) - this is what occurs when a family court lawyer is promoted to criminal court judge - bottom line is the police know and have training and yet decide to perjure themselves - cops know the law yet continue more and more these days to bend, break and circumvent it to their advantage regardless of the fact an innocent person may spend years behind bars for something they didn't commit - disgusting and very third worldish - and very scary. . . .

[Dayseed]

karra karra:

Believe me, judges don't necessarily make the correct call(s) - this is what occurs when a family court lawyer is promoted to criminal court judge - bottom line is the police know and have training and yet decide to perjure themselves - cops know the law yet continue more and more these days to bend, break and circumvent it to their advantage regardless of the fact an innocent person may spend years behind bars for something they didn't commit - disgusting and very third worldish - and very scary. . . .

And sounding very fear-mongerish. Do you have statistics, evidence or any particular case to support your accusation that the police are increasingly violating the Charter and this is due to deliberate disavowal of it? Are Charter challenges increasing in criminal trials? Are they higher now than when the Charter was introduced in 1982 and there was a lot of uncharted territory on which to acquit accused? Would complexity of the law, sometimes contradictory and vague caselaw contribute to inadvertent Charter breaches?

Spare us the theatrics; it's terribly third worldish of you.

[DerbyX]

Dayseed Dayseed:

I don't see in the OCA decision where the judges found him to have lied on the stand. That's perjury. What I recall them saying is that his articulation of his reasons was essentially piss-fucking-poor.

As a general rule, yes, police lies are shocking as fuck. That's why I've quoted R v. Land. If you think that what the cop did in this case is horrifying to the public, read that case. The Judge dismissed the wiretap affiant as telling lies wholly inconsistent with reality.

I'm not worried. I think that Judges make the correct calls and when they don't, there are two extra courts which will hear your case and correct the lower courts if need be. If the Supreme Court tosses Harrison's conviction, so be it. Their logic and jurisprudence on the matter far outstrips mine.

Where do you see in the OCA decision that they found the police officers articulation piss-poor?

$1:

In a 2-1 decision last year, Associate Chief Justice Dennis O'Connor and Justice James MacPherson of the Ontario Court of Appeal approved the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence, arguing in part that while the officer's conduct was wrong, there was no indication it was the result of a systemic OPP problem. Justice Eleanore Cronk dissented, accusing the majority of minimizing what the officer did.

I'm just going by what the article says and it says the officer lied under oath on the stand. That in my opinion renders the search invalid. If he had admitted that he had pulled over the car because he rolled red in cop car bingo or something but then got suspicious by the passengers actions then that would be different. Not only would he be admitting his actions were wrong he was openly inviting himself for discipline actions that he deserved.

Now, I do agree that the nature of the crime exposed should be taken into account. Finding the guys had murdered somebody and stuffed him in the trunk is different then if they had pulled over the car wrongfully and found drugs. Of course in that case thats why we have judges to offer rulings that say the evidence would have been discovered at a later date and that through normal police work would have been connected to the men.

Unless you have more info to the case then I do I see a police officer who stopped a car without reason and then lied about it on the stand because he got lucky and caught a couple of coke dealers and knew the evidence could get tossed because of illegal grounds.

At no time should a cop lie on the stand without grave consequences and unless those consequences are a complete miscarriage of justice like letting a murderer walk that then courts must err on the side of caution. It isn't fiction that police have lied on the stands nor planted evidence to insure a conviction because "they just knew" the defendant was guilty.

[martin14]

Dayseed,


The officer stopped someone after realizing his first reason for doing it
was gone, and he wasn't able to fabricate something better.
Since the first act was wrong, everything following should be invalidated, imo.

Inconsequential breaches of the Charter:
Thats really worrying.
It ties in with your bank statement, seems harmless enough, but it shows
the police not doing their jobs properly, and the certain minimum needed
is just glossed over. That is a slippery slope.

I gave an example of what can happen when the police have way too much
power, and what can happen as a result.
I'll ask again, are you happy with the police having authority like
that in Canada ?

No one like to see criminals walk away from a sentence because of a
technicality, I've had that experience myself, and it wasn't fun to watch.

But I dont see any reason to start tearing up rights and freedoms
that citizens enjoy, just because of incompetent police officers.

[uwish]

If the guy has a half ass defence lawyer, he will appeal to the SCC. There is NO way they would allow evidence to be admitted that was obtained under these conditions.

[Dayseed]

uwish uwish:

If the guy has a half ass defence lawyer, he will appeal to the SCC. There is NO way they would allow evidence to be admitted that was obtained under these conditions.

It went to the Supreme Court over a month ago. Thanks for coming out.

Derby,

I don't have the time right now to address your concerns about the possible perjury, but I laughed out loud at rolling red on cop car bingo.

Martin,

I asked you salient questions about vagueness and contradictory caselaw, I asked you about the triggering of rights and the necessary conditions to do so being open to interpretation and I asked you about previously uncharted territory regarding the Charter being decided by the Courts. You just dodged it all.

I pointed out your amateurish understanding of the Charter. You ignored it.

You simply reiterate an obsolete position and refer to a vague "certain minimum".

Define "certain minimum" then.

And I don't care about comparisons to other countries.