Great Big Stupid Charter Shut up Shut up Shut up

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
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

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
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

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
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.

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.
 

Oreana

New Member
Jul 15, 2009
9
0
1
On a peninsula.
What happened to the "tail light out" defence?

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

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

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
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:

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
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

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,411
11,455
113
Low Earth Orbit
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.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Yes, rights are rights, but it is a shame that sometimes you trip over them. Some rights are not always good for every situation take this one for example. This one was not thought out enough before enacting.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
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.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
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.

Any cop can pull over any car on the road and ask for the documents. They need either your permission or a warrant to search. To get a warrant they need to show a valid reason to a judge to get the warrant. Same as they need a valid warrant to enter your home to search for something, rather than just breaking down the door at 4 am.

There are rules and above everyone else, the government which includes all departments such as the police must obey the law regardless of what it is.

Those calling for unlawful searches, I am sure would be the most vocal should their homes be searched in that manner for firearms and their bank accounts for income tax evasion.

I am amazed at how many people are either ignorant about the government breaking the law yet so adverse to governments who act in the manner that is supported here by a few members.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,220
8,057
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I'm in agreement with you here, to a point. In the case where the guy is
pulled over due to the fact that he was the only one that wasn't speeding
and therefore was the only one not breaking the law, lead to a check of
his drivers license (which was invalid) which lead to a search of his
vehicle (the relevance of that to a non-renewed drivers license, I have no
idea), which lead to a discovery of drugs (or a firearm...whatever).

Justifying that is like justifying singling someone out because they're the
only that isn't White, or Male, for a search of their possessions..
regardless of whether they've broken the law or not. That just doesn't
pass the smell test in my books.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
How many times have vehicles been pulled over for random checks? Anything subject to licensing and regulation is subject to inspection. The vehicle itself isn't covered by any Charter. That and intimidation are foot in the door cops have - and use to their advantage. Then, there's the Catch 22 where if they ask to search and you refuse, you look suspicious. I've seen cars held by cops for two hours while a search warrant is prepared.
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
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.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
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.

O.K. let's say laws found in the criminal code which involve the well being and safety of others . I know there is still a law on the books in Winnipeg whereby it is illegal to carry water in open bucks on the street between the months of November and April..................:lol::lol::lol::lol: