[Newsbot]

Title: Police will probe dismissal of ex-cop's drunk driving case
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: Alta_redneck
Date: 2009-02-19 09:48:00
Canadian

[Alta_redneck]

Man, this rookie cop testified that he could smell alcohol on the off duty cop�s breath, he also admitted to the officer to having had a couple drinks that night and he allegedly ran a red light causing the accident.

What more do they need, to ask for a breath test?

[uwish]

so this guy's charter rights are violated and he gets off, what about that case where the guys charter rights were also violated but they STILL admitted the evidence?

talk about double standard, is it because he is a cop?

[DrCaleb]

Edmonton Police will lead a probe into conduct of Edmonton police officer. Being from Edmonton myself, I know how this will turn out *cough*overtimebar*cough*.

I wonder if there is a secret handshake you use to get out of a DUI ticket.

[DrJones]

Drinking and driving trials are actually very complicated. You wouldn't think it, but it's true. If the arresting cop made mistakes it's entirely possible the accused's charter rights were violated. Sometimes police officers make the wrong breath demand - there are actually two of them - or fail to follow procedure which some judges take very seriously. I don't know what happened her for sure, but this is a common occurence. Impaired driving and over 80 charges are some of the most complicated and litigated areas of criminal law.

[uwish]

I never said these cases are not complicated but the fundamental issue remains

This guy got off because his charter rights were violated ok, I will buy that. But don't then tell me a provincial judge or the court of appeals has the audacity to say,yup this guys charter rights were violated as well BUT we will still allow the illegally collected evidence to be admitted and uphold your conviction!

You can't have it both ways, and you sure as shit can't 'decide' to apply charter rights here but not over there.

(my first post was referencing this thread / article; current-events-f59/charter-challenge-civil-liberties-vs-justice-t72129.html )

[DrJones]

You can have it both ways, depending on the context. Even where one's Charter rights are violated, the evidence against that person can still be admitted - this is done via section 24(2) of the Charter.

The judge will consider how serious a violation of the accused's rights occurred, and how seriously the crime was he was charged with, and the nature of the evidence in question. Sometimes they will still allow the evidence in; other times, they will not. But this is what the Charter was designed to do.

It's not a random process. There is much case law on how to apply the 24(2) test.

I don't know how this particular case played out, but this is the law in Canada.

[EyeBrock]

uwish wrote:

so this guy's charter rights are violated and he gets off, what about that case where the guys charter rights were also violated but they STILL admitted the evidence?

talk about double standard, is it because he is a cop?

uwish, go to any court and watch an impaired trial. Anybody can go and you will be shocked at what you see, I still am.
The accused regularly get off for even minor charter breaches.
The whole impaired process is a paperwork minefield for the cops, numerous notices, copies of this, that and anything else.
Every stage and bit of paper is another avenue for defence lawyers to attack the officer's evidence.

I won't even try to defend this guy but in my area the conviction rate for impaired’s is about 30%.
That means 70% 'not guilty'.
All the accused persons are guilty, the machine doesn't lie but defence lawyers are up on every conceivable 'out' and judges seem to be pre-disposed to find the 'element of doubt' on most trials so the guilty walk free.

We get the justice system we deserve.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock wrote:

uwish wrote:

so this guy's charter rights are violated and he gets off, what about that case where the guys charter rights were also violated but they STILL admitted the evidence?

talk about double standard, is it because he is a cop?

uwish, go to any court and watch an impaired trial. Anybody can go and you will be shocked at what you see, I still am.
The accused regularly get off for even minor charter breaches.
The whole impaired process is a paperwork minefield for the cops, numerous notices, copies of this, that and anything else.
Every stage and bit of paper is another avenue for defence lawyers to attack the officer's evidence.

I won't even try to defend this guy but in my area the conviction rate for impaired’s is about 30%.
That means 70% 'not guilty'.
All the accused persons are guilty, the machine doesn't lie but defence lawyers are up on every conceivable 'out' and judges seem to be pre-disposed to find the 'element of doubt' on most trials so the guilty walk free.

We get the justice system we deserve.

Sentencing circles all around? (couldn't resist sorry!)

[dino_bobba_renno]

EyeBrock wrote:

uwish, go to any court and watch an impaired trial. Anybody can go and you will be shocked at what you see, I still am.
The accused regularly get off for even minor charter breaches.
The whole impaired process is a paperwork minefield for the cops, numerous notices, copies of this, that and anything else.
Every stage and bit of paper is another avenue for defence lawyers to attack the officer's evidence.

I totally agree with you on that. I use to work out in Rimbey, a small town out by Red Deer. I knew of at least 5 guys who got nailed for impaired (some of them a few times) and they all hired this one lawyer who specialized in getting guys off of DUI charges. For $1500 all most all of them walked away scot free, the one guy who did get convicted didn't even have his license suspended because he argued he needed it to work.

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

uwish wrote:

so this guy's charter rights are violated and he gets off, what about that case where the guys charter rights were also violated but they STILL admitted the evidence?

talk about double standard, is it because he is a cop?

uwish, go to any court and watch an impaired trial. Anybody can go and you will be shocked at what you see, I still am.
The accused regularly get off for even minor charter breaches.
The whole impaired process is a paperwork minefield for the cops, numerous notices, copies of this, that and anything else.
Every stage and bit of paper is another avenue for defence lawyers to attack the officer's evidence.

I won't even try to defend this guy but in my area the conviction rate for impaired’s is about 30%.
That means 70% 'not guilty'.
All the accused persons are guilty, the machine doesn't lie but defence lawyers are up on every conceivable 'out' and judges seem to be pre-disposed to find the 'element of doubt' on most trials so the guilty walk free.

We get the justice system we deserve.

Sentencing circles all around? (couldn't resist sorry!)

Hey Derby, if that's what the people want who am I to say no? I have my views but I do my job regardless.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock wrote:

Hey Derby, if that's what the people want who am I to say no? I have my views but I do my job regardless.

Its ironic that the people decrying the sentencing circle as being some cop-out have missed this thread entirely where you show our own judicial system routinely lets drunks off with not even that much.

I recall in a case in nearby Guelph where a women with 19 prior convictions in DUIs was involved in a serious MVA that put an innocent driver into the hospital (thankfully not the morgue) for a year causing him to lose his academic year to say the least get off with probation. The reason was printed as she was going through a tough divorce at the time. This was one of the SADD highlighted cases during that year and sticks in my mind.

[EyeBrock]

Hey Lily, cops, or in this case an 'ex-cop' are people too. Why should they be treated any different to the 70% of guilty people who get off on impaired charges?

[Yogi]

lily wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Hey Lily, cops, or in this case an 'ex-cop' are people too. Why should they be treated any different to the 70% of guilty people who get off on impaired charges?

Because they get all pissy when us regular folk get off on technicalities?

You'd think they'd want to set an example or something.

They do Lily. But just 'like everyone else', they don't want to be the example!

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

uwish wrote:

so this guy's charter rights are violated and he gets off, what about that case where the guys charter rights were also violated but they STILL admitted the evidence?

talk about double standard, is it because he is a cop?

uwish, go to any court and watch an impaired trial. Anybody can go and you will be shocked at what you see, I still am.
The accused regularly get off for even minor charter breaches.
The whole impaired process is a paperwork minefield for the cops, numerous notices, copies of this, that and anything else.
Every stage and bit of paper is another avenue for defence lawyers to attack the officer's evidence.

I won't even try to defend this guy but in my area the conviction rate for impaired’s is about 30%.
That means 70% 'not guilty'.
All the accused persons are guilty, the machine doesn't lie but defence lawyers are up on every conceivable 'out' and judges seem to be pre-disposed to find the 'element of doubt' on most trials so the guilty walk free.

We get the justice system we deserve.

Sentencing circles all around? (couldn't resist sorry!)

As I said Derby, we get the 'justice' system we deserve.
My place is not to judge the guilty or decry the injustices I see daily. I am a foot soldier, doing my job.
You guys can debate the pros and cons of all this shite but I have to deal with it.