Random searches by the police: They do happen.

[Said1]

Except for emergency or exigent circumstances, the consent of the Attorney General was required beforehand. Even in emergency situations, this consent was required after the fact in accordance with the delay prescribed by the ATA. In all cases, an initial judicial hearing had to be held within 24 hours, or, if a judge was not available, as soon as possible thereafter. The maximum period a person could be detained after the initial judicial hearing was 48 hours. The purpose and effect of the provision was not to allow for indefinite detention, but to permit a judge to impose reasonable conditions considered necessary, for example, to prevent a terrorist activity from being carried out (e.g. a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour). As with the investigative hearing provision, the recognizance with conditions provision was subject to annual reporting requirements to Parliament by the Attorney General and the Minster of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.


.

Why did you quoted a portion from the Anti-terrorism Act?

 

[Unforgiven]

Why did you quoted a portion from the Anti-terrorism Act?

Because I think those rules are now used as the base from which all police and JPs are starting from.

 

[Said1]

Because I think those rules are now used as the base from which all police and JPs are starting from.

I'm not sure how those ammendments were applied to the code. I do know that there are differences between held for questioning, being arrested and charged and the allowable length of time between. Right now, I have a splitting headache, so if someone else wouldlike to interpret, please do. :-(

I agree with you about the spelling, though. Glass houses, eh?

 

[Scott Free]

There are two things you say to police.
Before I tell them to you I should point out that the police have a job. It is to build a case against you. Let that sink in a bit.

The first thing you say to the police when stopped is a question.
"Am I free to go?" No discussion or anything else. There are two answers to that question. Yes you are free to go or no you are under arrest. So unless you get one of those answers, repeat the question.

If you are free to go, then do so. Git and make it snappy.

If you are in fact under arrest, then there is the second thing you say to the police. "I want to make a phone call." That's it. No clearing things up, no name rank and serial number or anything.

The police have one job and that is to build a case against you.
The reason they question you is to get you to reveal information that can be used to build a case against you. Lying to you isn't a problem for the police so don't expect the truth or for the police to make sure your rights are protected.

Am I free to go?
I want to make my phone call.
And call someone to get you a lawyer.
The police can hold you for 48 hours without charge.
Then they have to let you go.

You can't resist arrest, arguing law with a cop is just stupid so don't do it. Shut up and you will be better off in the end. Do as you are asked, agree to nothing, and remember that the scary psychology is part of the play they put on to build a case against you.

The police have the right to stop you and ask you questions. You have the right not to answer them.

Nice post!

 

[gopher]

''The police can hold you for 48 hours without charge.''

This clearly is a violation of constitutional due process and should be banned.

 

[taxslave]

Random searches happen all the time. Roadblocks to check for seat belt use /impaired drivers is a random search and seem to be legal. So is pulling vehicles over on the side of the road for safety inspections. I don't have a problem with these simply because of the safety aspect for others on the road. However I can see how this process can easily be abused.