Only in Saskatchewan
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
It isn't. They can't open the trunk without a warrant or your permission.
Which is why my windows are heavily tinted and anything in the back is also covered with a blanket. Deters both crooks and cops!;-)
Yes he could have but he didn't. So what? What exactly did this guy do that requires society being protected from him...or do you just think we should hand out criminal records for anybody that doesn't do the smartest thing?
Although I agree, the law is to overreaching, he broke the law.
Let me ask you a question...
Say a cop finds a gentleman past out in his running car. He rousts him, to find he's clearly inebriated. The gentleman explains to the officer that he's just waiting for a cab, and trying to keep warm.
The Officer moves on.
An hour passes, still no cab, the inebriated gentleman decides to drive home instead. On the way, he runs into a minivan and kills the occupants.
Is the Officer liable?
With or without due process?
In the case of your overly simplistic scenario, I would say they cop could very well be liable. Of course, this is the 21st century and cops have these new fangled devices I like to call telephones and radios. If the cop were to call the cab company and verify the man's claim, then I don't think he should be liable.
Bingo...yes...if you ignore the realities of the day to come up with your scenario.
So you don't think the law is stupid, but instead think the law is there to protect law enforcement as well as the public.
Good to know.
Ignore what? The silly radio comment?
Nah, whether or not there was a cab on the way is irrelevant if the gentleman drives away.
I mean it's easy to say that the law is stupid. Such simplistic opinions are easy to come by.
I think the law is overreaching, but due to public outcry, liability issues and liberal civil court rulings, the zero tolerance policies are merely an unfortunate byproduct.
The fact is the situation is far more complex than "the law is stupid". There are liability issues, public safety and the fall out from the court of public opinion, should an officers personal judgment end in tragedy. Your memorialization of "stupid, dumb, ignorant" cops highlights some of that complexity, succinctly.
No
Yes we've been through this already. I understand some folks wish to hold people accountable for things they might do. I'm not one of them.
Ya, I already read that simplistic response.
Unfortunately the issue is far more complex than that. Sitting behind the wheel, in a running car, while inebriated, is considered care and control under the law. It isn't a "might".
Section 253 reads as follows...
"Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not…."
He wasn't charged for what he might do, he was charged for what he did.
I still think that's far reaching, but you want to ignore the reality of why it is, and hold onto your simplistic views.
Fair enough, to each their own.
You really should try and keep up with the thread. I think everybody knows what the law is. Thanks for the input though.
Let me ask you a question...
2am, a cop finds a car and a motorhome in the Walmart parking lot. He finds a man in the back seat of the car sleeping, and another man at the kitchen table of the motorhome sleeping.They are both drunk after spending an evening drinking in the motorhome, and both men have their keys in their back pocket.
The cop charges the owner of the car, but doesn't charge the owner of the motorhome. Should a judge toss this case out of his court?
2am, a cop finds a car and a motorhome in the Walmart parking lot. He finds a man in the back seat of the car sleeping, and another man at the kitchen table of the motorhome sleeping.They are both drunk after spending an evening drinking in the motorhome, and both men have their keys in their back pocket.
The cop charges the owner of the car, but doesn't charge the owner of the motorhome. Should a judge toss this case out of his court?
Now consider the same story, but they are parked in a different parking lot where there is no consent to camp.
Does illegal camping automatically make the driver of the car guilty of a DUI offense? If so, do we charge the driver of the motorhome as well?
Does illegal camping automatically make the driver of the car guilty of a DUI offense? If so, do we charge the driver of the motorhome as well?
Applying your logic to a multitude of laws, would result in near anarchy.
Driving to the corner store would be like Death Race.
Use your head.
No.
So, we've been able to establish that the use of a car can be viewed as similar to a motorhome, even if the car is illegally camped in a bar parking lot. Imo, all that we need to prove a drunk's innocence is an action that give us reason to believe that he had every intent to sleep it off, and no intent of driving. Obviously passing out behind the wheel is not a clear enough gesture, but climbing into the back seat seems reasonable to me.