Did he break the law or did he breech proper procedure? Huge difference.
In this case, he did both.
Did he break the law or did he breech proper procedure? Huge difference.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What happened to the "tail light out" defence?
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.
I suspect the video cameras installed in cop cars nowadays had something to do with it.
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.
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.
I bet Da Judge didn't give back the coke.... One wheelman owes somebody some really long green....
But it will probably be of great benefit to the policemen's retirement fund.Chances are that this guy won't be celebrating too many more birthdays. His buddies will want to have a friendly discussion about the 4 mil in product that is in police custody.
There is actually a solution to this. Once you break the law you have no rights, beyond 3 meals a day, a bed to sleep in and access to legal counsil.
The problem is that if you own a motor vehicle, or vessel, home, computer, power tools, firearms, have children or pets, you are likely breaking at least three laws per day, and if you don't have a lawyer on retainer and by your side, (or even if you do), you'll never know it. They may be city by-laws, provincial statutes, or in the case of firearms, criminal code offenses. I even know QC's who don't recognise the laws they or someone else are breaking. If police are allowed to go on fishing trips they're bound to find something if they cast their net wide enough, and they have done so in the past. The Charter is there to protect the rest of us from abuse as well.