Great Big Stupid Charter Shut up Shut up Shut up


Unforgiven
#1
THE CANADIAN PRESS


OTTAWA – Canada's top court has thrown out evidence of cocaine worth up to $4 million because the police search "flagrantly" breached the suspect's Charter rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 6-1 Friday to acquit Bradley Harrison of all drug charges.

It was one of four judgments handed down that clarify legal limits for judges and police when it comes to evidence obtained through detention or searches that cross the Charter line.

The rulings underscore that any breach of rights must be balanced against the value of the evidence and the facts of each case.

The court says Harrison and a friend were stopped in northern Ontario in 2004 by a provincial police officer who had no justifiable reason for pulling them over.
The officer then went on to search the vehicle and found 35 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of up to $4 million.

Harrison was originally sentenced to five years in prison.
+++++++

Sloppy job by the police and the Crown. Wonder how much that cost?
 
Niflmir
#2
Must have been pretty serious. I have read numerous cases where the officers searched without permission and the evidence was not thrown out. We do not live in a police state, thankfully.
 
taxslave
#3
Stupid judges. If the cops found illegal substances that should be good enough. If not then perhaps there would be a case for police harassment. Criminals have far too many rights in this country.
 
Niflmir
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Stupid judges. If the cops found illegal substances that should be good enough. If not then perhaps there would be a case for police harassment. Criminals have far too many rights in this country.

Move to Uzbekistan then.
 
Ron in Regina
#5
That's one of the four cases looked at. In others, evidence gathered
in illegal searches was allowed due to the nature or severity of the
crime.

In one case in Ontario, evidence was allowed in against a guy who
was stopped because he "wasn't" speeding when everyone else
was...making him look suspicious.

Here's a Link: Police conduct during arrests to face more scrutiny after top court rulings
 
Walter
#6
Is there a link to the dissenting opinion, and who is the dissenting judge?
 
JLM
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post

THE CANADIAN PRESS


OTTAWA – Canada's top court has thrown out evidence of cocaine worth up to $4 million because the police search "flagrantly" breached the suspect's Charter rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 6-1 Friday to acquit Bradley Harrison of all drug charges.

It was one of four judgments handed down that clarify legal limits for judges and police when it comes to evidence obtained through detention or searches that cross the Charter line.

The rulings underscore that any breach of rights must be balanced against the value of the evidence and the facts of each case.

The court says Harrison and a friend were stopped in northern Ontario in 2004 by a provincial police officer who had no justifiable reason for pulling them over.
The officer then went on to search the vehicle and found 35 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of up to $4 million.

Harrison was originally sentenced to five years in prison.
+++++++

Sloppy job by the police and the Crown. Wonder how much that cost?

Isn't suspicion a good reason for detaining someone for investigation. Trudeau should have had that God damned charter rammed where the sun doesn't shine, it protects the wrong people at a big cost to the honest taxpayer.
 
lone wolf
#8
What justifiable reason do they need? A motor vehicle operates under the Highway Traffic Act. Both driver and vehicle are to be licensed. There's a loophole....
 
Niflmir
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Isn't suspicion a good reason for detaining someone for investigation. Trudeau should have had that God damned charter rammed where the sun doesn't shine, it protects the wrong people at a big cost to the honest taxpayer.

No, suspicion is a BS reason.

"Why'd you punch me officer?"

"Your were acting suspicious, so I thought I would punch you to get you to fess up."

It sounds exagerrated to you, but perfectly normal to people in less "criminal protecting" nations.
 
JLM
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

No, suspicion is a BS reason.

"Why'd you punch me officer?"

"Your were acting suspicious, so I thought I would punch you to get you to fess up."

It sounds exagerrated to you, but perfectly normal to people in less "criminal protecting" nations.

jj

In order to have a sensible debate the debaters have to sensible people. We're talking here about reason to investigate in a lawful, reasonable manner, which doesn't include assault. Like including things like requesting documentation and perhaps doing searches with a warrant, not thuggery. We are talking about Canada and the U.S. not the most primitive part of Zimbabwe.
 
Ron in Regina
#11
The rules of law, that both the general public and law enforcement are
suppose to follow, are what keep Canada & the USA from being
Zimbabwe.
 
Niflmir
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

jj

In order to have a sensible debate the debaters have to sensible people. We're talking here about reason to investigate in a lawful, reasonable manner, which doesn't include assault. Like including things like requesting documentation and perhaps doing searches with a warrant, not thuggery. We are talking about Canada and the U.S. not the most primitive part of Zimbabwe.

Yes, and their investigation was not lawful. So what exactly is your point? That these police officers should be shipped to Zimbabwe?
 
ironsides
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Isn't suspicion a good reason for detaining someone for investigation. Trudeau should have had that God damned charter rammed where the sun doesn't shine, it protects the wrong people at a big cost to the honest taxpayer.

It has happened a few times in the U.S. also, police forget to follow procedure. We also have things like "Miranda Rights", and the ACLU. A police officer must have probable cause that a crime has been committed in ALL states in order to stop someone. The loop hole in this is, for example the police see something illegal in your vehicle by accident that is visible thru the window (They got ya).other than that, they cannot do a random search because they want to.
Does make you mad when someone gets off scot-free for something like that though.
 
Niflmir
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

It has happened a few times in the U.S. also, police forget to follow procedure. We also have things like "Miranda Rights", and the ACLU. A police officer must have probable cause that a crime has been committed in ALL states in order to stop someone. The loop hole in this is, for example the police see something illegal in your vehicle by accident that is visible thru the window (They got ya).other than that, they cannot do a random search because they want to.
Does make you mad when someone gets off scot-free for something like that though.

In Canada, even if the police violate somebody's rights the judges may allow the evidence if the violation is slight and the crime is great. Clearly, it is a slippery slope, but we seem to manage ok, knee jerking notwithstanding.
 
JLM
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Yes, and their investigation was not lawful. So what exactly is your point? That these police officers should be shipped to Zimbabwe?


35 kilos of cocaine in their possession, I don't feel sorry for the guy. If justice were correctly served the trafficker would be doing 10 years at hard labour and the cop would have had a letter placed on his file requesting in future he stick to proper procedure. That's how that should have gone down.
 
Niflmir
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

35 kilos of cocaine in their possession, I don't feel sorry for the guy. If justice were correctly served the trafficker would be doing 10 years at hard labour and the cop would have had a letter placed on his file requesting in future he stick to proper procedure. That's how that should have gone down.

Go to Uzbekistan then. That's how it goes down there. Breaking the law is not an acceptable investigative practice in Canada.
 
lone wolf
#17
I bet Da Judge didn't give back the coke.... One wheelman owes somebody some really long green....
 
JLM
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

The rules of law, that both the general public and law enforcement are
suppose to follow, are what keep Canada & the USA from being
Zimbabwe.

Unfortunately there's a few bad cops in every jurisdiction. In Vancouver today a cop is getting his comeuppance- several months ago he and another off duty cop, while sh*t faced assaulted an East Indian newspaper delivery man. The crown wants 4-6 months in the slammer, the defense wants a conditional discharge.
 
ironsides
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

35 kilos of cocaine in their possession, I don't feel sorry for the guy. If justice were correctly served the trafficker would be doing 10 years at hard labour and the cop would have had a letter placed on his file requesting in future he stick to proper procedure. That's how that should have gone down.


Now that is how it should have gone down. I would have even gone as far as omitting the letter and just telling the officer be more careful the next time.
 
JLM
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Go to Uzbekistan then. That's how it goes down there. Breaking the law is not an acceptable investigative practice in Canada.

Did he break the law or did he breech proper procedure? Huge difference.
 
Niflmir
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Did he break the law or did he breech proper procedure? Huge difference.

In this case, he did both.
 
lone wolf
#22
What happened to the "tail light out" defence?
 
ironsides
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

In Canada, even if the police violate somebody's rights the judges may allow the evidence if the violation is slight and the crime is great. Clearly, it is a slippery slope, but we seem to manage ok, knee jerking notwithstanding.

At least the judge had the option, but he/she took the law literally, this I think should have been the exception. This was serious.
 
JLM
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Now that is how it should have gone down. I would have even gone as far as omitting the letter and just telling the officer be more careful the next time.

I think in these type of incidents 90% of the time the cop gets the sh*tty end of the stick. Often times they have to put with being called "pigs", get spat on sworn at and worse and even the most patient person would be tempted to lose their cool. I know they have to contend with the conditions of the job- but perhaps the ones who do "lose it" are after all human.
 
Niflmir
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

At least the judge had the option, but he/she took the law literally, this I think should have been the exception. This was serious.

You apparently missed the thread where I posted the most extensive study ever into cocaine use which pointed out just how not serious it is. You can find it here. I won't buy that it is serious, even though people at large might believe it to be so, without any evidence for their beliefs. Feel free to offer evidence to support yours.

Quote:

Applying the framework in Grant to these facts, I am satisfied that the balance mandated by s. 24(2) favours exclusion of the evidence. It is true that the public interest in having the case adjudicated on its merits favours the admission of the evidence, particularly in light of its reliability. On the other hand, the impact on the accused’s rights, while not egregious, was significant. Bulking even larger, however, was the police misconduct involved in obtaining the evidence. This was far from a technical or trivial breach. Rather, it involved a “brazen and flagrant” disregard, to quote the trial judge, of the appellant’s Charter rights against arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure. These are protections that law-abiding Canadians take for granted and courts must play a role in safeguarding them even where the beneficiaries are involved in unlawful activity. In the circumstances of this case, it is my view that the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. I conclude that the evidence should have been excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter. I would therefore allow the appeal and enter an acquittal.

I personally don't want to come back to find a country where the police can pull people over without real reason and search a vehicle with a similar rational vacuum. At least Uzbekistan has a population of 10 girls to 1 man.
 
ironsides
#26
They sure are on the frontline's in the crime world, outgunned, outmanned, I don't blame them for going off occasionally. My wife just told me there is a truck dealer in (Max motors) in Butler, Missouri is offering a gun voucher with every truck sold. That maybe going a little far even for me.

Missouri car dealer offers gun store vouchers with new truck - Columbia Missourian
 
Oreana
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

What happened to the "tail light out" defence?

I suspect the video cameras installed in cop cars nowadays had something to do with it.

Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

My wife just told me there is a truck dealer in (Max motors) in Butler, Missouri is offering a gun voucher with every truck sold.

Did Bowling for Columbine pop up in his Netflix recently? Guess he hasn't heard about all the ammunition hoarding.
 
lone wolf
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Oreana View Post

I suspect the video cameras installed in cop cars nowadays had something to do with it.

It would be a problem now ... but the stop was made in 2004. OPP dashcams didn't become part of the equipment until June 2006. "You-lie-and-I'll-swear-to-it" just wasn't in their court....
Last edited by lone wolf; Jul 17th, 2009 at 08:51 PM..
 
ironsides
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Oreana View Post

I suspect the video cameras installed in cop cars nowadays had something to do with it.



Did Bowling for Columbine pop up in his Netflix recently? Guess he hasn't heard about all the ammunition hoarding.


Your right there, it is very hard to get ammunition in any quantity, shelves are pretty empty. Funny and a little scary though, the average person is unaware of what is happening.
 
petros
#30
Rights are rights and taking one away for any reason is losing one yourself no matter how much negative limelight is shed as fad crimes pass YOU lose a right.

You don't get those back and when it's your turn to need it is not there.
 

Similar Threads

149
Shut Up about Iran
by JBeee | Jun 30th, 2009
0
That Oughta Shut Em Up For a While
by Cannuck | Mar 26th, 2009
133
Shut Up (about) Chavez
by darkbeaver | Dec 8th, 2007
28
Shut down Guantanamo Bay: UN
by Jersay | Feb 26th, 2006