Vancouver's Finest
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
Yeah, he pulled his arm away from the cop, and tried to turn around to face him. That's called resisting arrest.
So the cop is supposed to wait until he's pulled loose, turned around and squared up to him, and he's now at risk?
If you're ever being arrested, don't pull away. Don't argue. Don't try to flip around and get in the cop's face. It's aggressive, and the first thing someone does before they attack said cop.
pft...thumb locks are for sissies... punch his teeth out...that's the real man's way
Yeah it's easy to say how it all should be done from the comfort of a computer chair.
If it was an isolated incident, I could see defending the cops, but resorting to violence is becoming common place. I think there is a bigger issue behind all this that we are not willing to even consider.
Some one should take Akhavan aside and explain, when he keeps hiding bad apples or make excuses for badly trained police,
it's bad for the whole barrel.
There are on the whole a very good police force that we count on to protect the general public.
Hmmm. I also see a really HUGE increase in the flip side of the coin.... the lippy 'you have no right' folks who choose to argue and fight and be outraged, rather than comply, head to the cop shop, sort it out on paper, and go home. The folks who think cops should be able to magically see the difference between them, and someone who will attack them.
Pffffb
Besides according to the video he was searched without being arrested under the narcotics act first.
How did you arrive at that as the video only covers part of the encounter with police?
What drugs?
I disagree. Once arrested the Police have the right to search your person. Yep even invasive if required.
That's the way it works. Narcotics Act.
.
Listen to the video and him complaining about being searched already.
The cop didn't end up pushing a broom for doing his job properly.
.
Listen to the video and him complaining about being searched already.
The cop didn't end up pushing a broom for doing his job properly.
Search and Seizure
Police have both statutory and common law powers to conduct searches. With respect to drug-related offences, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act establishes a comprehensive search and seizure scheme. Although these provisions are similar to the search and seizure provisions of the Criminal Code, police have some additional powers under the illicit drug legislation. For example, the legislation authorizes police who are in the process of executing a search warrant to search a person found at the locale for illicit drugs if certain conditions are satisfied. Generally, police are only allowed to search a person when it is incidental to lawful arrest. As in the Criminal Code, the legislation authorizes warrantless searches in exigent circumstances.
Section 8 of the Charter provides that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Court decisions have dealt with the question of whether searches are reasonable in various situations and the ancillary question of whether evidence obtained during the searches can be adduced at trial. A search will generally be reasonable if it is authorized by law, the law itself is reasonable, and the search is carried out in a reasonable manner.
Section 8 protects the public’s reasonable expectation of privacy from state intrusions. Thus, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, section 8 does not apply. In addition, a diminished expectation of privacy (for example, in prisons or at border crossings) will lower the standard of reasonableness (for example, excusing the absence of a warrant or reducing the standard required for justifying the search). A person’s home is where there would be the greatest expectation of privacy and thus a greater degree of constitutional protection.
There is a presumption that a warrantless search is unreasonable. The general rule for a valid search is that the police will require prior authorization to conduct the search (for example, by obtaining a search warrant) and reasonable and probable grounds that justify it. This is to provide a safeguard against unjustified state intrusion. It is recognized, however, that prior authorization is not always feasible, although this should generally be limited to situations in which exigent circumstances render obtaining a warrant impractical.
Searches conducted at the border by customs officers are an example of reduced constitutional protections where the courts find that there is a diminished expectation of privacy based on the context. For example, in the case of border searches, it is not necessary to obtain prior authorization.
Generally, federal criminal law does not provide authorization for a search of the person. The common law does, however, allow a search of the person incidental to a lawful arrest. This common law power is an exception to the general rule that a search requires prior authorization to be reasonable. A person may only be searched for the purpose of locating further evidence relating to the charge upon which he or she has been arrested or to locate a weapon or some article which may assist him or her to escape or commit violence. Although the power to search incidental to an arrest is fairly broad, there is no automatic unrestricted right to search incidental to an arrest.
Courts have shown a willingness to scrutinize the manner in which a search of the person is conducted. The intrusiveness of a search can vary and courts have stated that the more intrusive the search, the greater must be the justification and greater the constitutional protection. Thus, although a frisk search will generally be acceptable, more intrusive searches such as strip searches would seem to require greater justification.
Because of the consensual nature of drug offences, police often resort to special investigative techniques to detect these crimes, including the use of electronic surveillance. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that electronic surveillance constitutes a search for the purposes of section 8 of the Charter, and its decisions in this area have had a significant impact on the Criminal Code provisions dealing with such techniques. Because electronic surveillance is more invasive of privacy than regular search warrants, more procedural safeguards are provided in the legislation.
Police Powers And Drug-Related Offences
A "War On Drugs" loophole.