rights violated during vehicle search

[Wilber]

Why bother

Makes one wonder when anyone they can find who wants to go into policing anymore is finally going to give up and just put in time till they can collect a pension.

EDIT:

The title of this thread was changed to be more descriptive of the discussion topic.

The title used to be: "Another beaut from so called intelligent people"

Edited February 29, 2008 by Charles Anthony
changed thread title

[Shakeyhands]

that is pretty stupid.

[FTA Lawyer]

Here's the thing...there's more than a decade of case-law out there which unequivocally tells cops that they can't search a car beyond what they see in plain view without first getting a warrant.

Items in an opaque bag in a concealed console compartment are not in plain view...pretty damn simple.

Warrants can easily be obtained by telephone.

Wouldn't even need a telewarrant here because the car was perfectly ripe for being impounded so a lawful search could be conducted at a later time.

Before cops give up, why don't they first try following the law. DON'T SEARCH A CAR WITHOUT A WARRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look, the only reason why these cases bother people is they invariably arise in drug trafficking scenarios...and it looks bad if a drug trafficker gets a break. But, proper police conduct affects ALL of us. I don't traffick drugs, but have in the past made the error of having open alcohol in the back seat of my car. If the cop that stopped me then had searched all of the private compartments of my car, I'd have been pissed off...and I would have had every right to be...because in Canada, we don't let police oppress our citizens.

FTA

[xul]

proper police conduct affects ALL of us.

You are right. If the judge made a ajar door for the right violation, Canada police would become more like China police soon.

[Wild Bill]

Here's the thing...there's more than a decade of case-law out there which unequivocally tells cops that they can't search a car beyond what they see in plain view without first getting a warrant.

Items in an opaque bag in a concealed console compartment are not in plain view...pretty damn simple.

Warrants can easily be obtained by telephone.

Wouldn't even need a telewarrant here because the car was perfectly ripe for being impounded so a lawful search could be conducted at a later time.

Before cops give up, why don't they first try following the law. DON'T SEARCH A CAR WITHOUT A WARRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look, the only reason why these cases bother people is they invariably arise in drug trafficking scenarios...and it looks bad if a drug trafficker gets a break. But, proper police conduct affects ALL of us. I don't traffick drugs, but have in the past made the error of having open alcohol in the back seat of my car. If the cop that stopped me then had searched all of the private compartments of my car, I'd have been pissed off...and I would have had every right to be...because in Canada, we don't let police oppress our citizens.

FTA

I'm sure this question must have been asked before but I've never heard the answer.

What if that "opague bag" contained a severed head? Or something equally serious?

[White Doors]

Here's the thing...there's more than a decade of case-law out there which unequivocally tells cops that they can't search a car beyond what they see in plain view without first getting a warrant.

Items in an opaque bag in a concealed console compartment are not in plain view...pretty damn simple.

Warrants can easily be obtained by telephone.

Wouldn't even need a telewarrant here because the car was perfectly ripe for being impounded so a lawful search could be conducted at a later time.

Before cops give up, why don't they first try following the law. DON'T SEARCH A CAR WITHOUT A WARRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look, the only reason why these cases bother people is they invariably arise in drug trafficking scenarios...and it looks bad if a drug trafficker gets a break. But, proper police conduct affects ALL of us. I don't traffick drugs, but have in the past made the error of having open alcohol in the back seat of my car. If the cop that stopped me then had searched all of the private compartments of my car, I'd have been pissed off...and I would have had every right to be...because in Canada, we don't let police oppress our citizens.

FTA

FTA, I hear what you are saying about protecting our rights and all but couldn't this be argued as inevitable discovery? it was only in a brown paper bag, the same one you keep booze in?

I think the razor cut a little close to the edge on this one.

Cops have a right to search a car without a warning if they suspect drugs or booze. They definitely suspected booze here, so why are they drugs thrown out?

I can see if they were searching for booze and they found evidence of trax invasion or something equally unrelated..

Edited February 29, 2008 by White Doors

[Wilber]

I'm sure this question must have been asked before but I've never heard the answer.

What if that "opague bag" contained a severed head? Or something equally serious?

What if it had been plastic explosive?

How about a body rapped in a rug? Would it make a difference if the corpse had a half empty can of Coors in its hand?

You make a bid deal about protecting us from the police but the more I read of these decisions I wonder who is really out of control. Who will protect us from those who interpret the laws and make them by the precedents they set? Who will protect us from the lawyers and judiciary? After all, if there was ever a profession where the principals are only accountable to each other FTA, you're in it.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't traffick drugs, but have in the past made the error of having open alcohol in the back seat of my car. If the cop that stopped me then had searched all of the private compartments of my car, I'd have been pissed off...and I would have had every right to be...because in Canada, we don't let police oppress our citizens.

FTA

No, you wouldn't have had the right to be pissed off. The fact that you broke the law supercedes what you see as your rights. How would you feel if you or a family member was a victim due to that line of thought?

Fact is, if a border guard finds the remnants of a joint in your ash tray, your car and your body will be searched. Why do you think someone out on the road, who could be a real danger to others on the road, should be given more consideration than someone entering the country? More consideration than the innocent people out on the roads?

Breaking the law and having the police search your car as a result is not "oppression;" it's the consequence of breaking the law.

[guyser]

No, you wouldn't have had the right to be pissed off. The fact that you broke the law supercedes what you see as your rights. How would you feel if you or a family member was a victim due to that line of thought?

Actually I am surprised at your line of thought.

The fact is the open case of beer is the illegal part, any other search mandates a warrant be sought. Even if it is a telephone warrant (not sure we can do that here), they must get it before searching for anything other than "in plain view" . This is true for both countries.

Without this law, and the law that says police must have a valid reason to pull anyone over we would all be subject to "fishing expeditions" at any time. It is the step to a police state.

This would also mean if you or I are walking down the street the cops could just stop you and search you.

I want my rights protected , ot abused.

Fact is, if a border guard finds the remnants of a joint in your ash tray, your car and your body will be searched. Why do you think someone out on the road, who could be a real danger to others on the road, should be given more consideration than someone entering the country? More consideration than the innocent people out on the roads?

Breaking the law and having the police search your car as a result is not "oppression;" it's the consequence of breaking the law.

Border guards operate under different rules.

It is oppression. There is no other way to see it. In both countries to boot.

Your Bill of Rights states as much.

[Pliny]

A law is applied to a circumstance and is to be interpreted as to it's relevancy to that circumstance which is why we have judges. I think what is in question in this case is whether justice prevails and it doesn't appear to have.

A person is always advised to seek counsel and never be his own lawyer. He will obviously be eaten alive by the "system" if he doesn't grant it it's importance.

[Guest American Woman]

Actually I am surprised at your line of thought.

The fact is the open case of beer is the illegal part, any other search mandates a warrant be sought. Even if it is a telephone warrant (not sure we can do that here), they must get it before searching for anything other than "in plain view" . This is true for both countries.

Without this law, and the law that says police must have a valid reason to pull anyone over we would all be subject to "fishing expeditions" at any time. It is the step to a police state.

This would also mean if you or I are walking down the street the cops could just stop you and search you.

I want my rights protected , ot abused.

The open beer was illegal, and as such, cause for a search. That's not saying the police didn't need a valid reason for pulling them over or for searching the car. They had a valid reason for pulling them over since the tail lights were off and they had a valid reason for searching the car since there was open beer in the car. A "fishing expedition" would involve pulling someone over for no reason and then searching their car for no reason. That wasn't the case in this situation.

So it's hardly the same situation as walking down the street and the cops being able to stop me and search me. There's no valid reason for it in that case.

As I said, in the first situation the search is the consequence of breaking the law. If the law says this is illegal, and apparently it does, I think the law should be changed.

Border guards operate under different rules.

It is oppression. There is no other way to see it. In both countries to boot.

Your Bill of Rights states as much.

I can't argue that border guards operate under different rules, but I'm wondering why. Why is someone entering the country under more scrutiny that someone out on the streets who clearly broke the law?

[Pliny]

Actually I am surprised at your line of thought.

The fact is the open case of beer is the illegal part, any other search mandates a warrant be sought. Even if it is a telephone warrant (not sure we can do that here), they must get it before searching for anything other than "in plain view" . This is true for both countries.

Without this law, and the law that says police must have a valid reason to pull anyone over we would all be subject to "fishing expeditions" at any time. It is the step to a police state.

This would also mean if you or I are walking down the street the cops could just stop you and search you.

I want my rights protected , ot abused.

Border guards operate under different rules.

It is oppression. There is no other way to see it. In both countries to boot.

Your Bill of Rights states as much.

The police should not have the right to stop you and search you if you are just walking down the street. If you are smoking a dube, and that is against the law, they should have that right. What is missing is judgement in all these cases where criminals get off on technicalities. The severity of a crime has to also be taken into account. Spitting on the sidewalk, if there be a law against it, should not earn me a free handcuffed strip search.

There has to exist peace and the security of person and property in a society. In many nations government is the most egregious offender of this. It is wise to be vigilant regarding the overstepping of authority by those entrusted with this responsibility. It is unwise to confuse criminals not respecting the right of others to peace and the security of person and property as honest citizens. As I said laws are made to be interpreted and applied to the circumstance. Murder is against the law, killing may not be. Self-defense overrides murder. It is the determination of justice that makes law applicable.

[guyser]

The open beer was illegal, and as such, cause for a search. That's not saying the police didn't need a valid reason for pulling them over or for searching the car. They had a valid reason for pulling them over since the tail lights were off and they had a valid reason for searching the car since there was open beer in the car. A "fishing expedition" would involve pulling someone over for no reason and then searching their car for no reason. That wasn't the case in this situation.

The police need probable cause to continue to search a car. The p[lain sight deal only pertains to that in plain sight.

The police always ask " may I search your car".........and they do that for a reason. Because it is the law that they must either ask or get a warrant. They cannot just search because a case of beer is seen.

Due to the rules of the road, any and every car, observed long enough will commit some type of infraction. For it to go any further requires certain rules to be followed.

So it's hardly the same situation as walking down the street and the cops being able to stop me and search me. There's no valid reason for it in that case.

There may be no valid reason , but without your rights being protected this sort of thing would become commonplace.

Say you went shopping. You are on your way home and it rains. You take your bag and stuff it under your coat so that nothing gets wet. Without "probable cause" you could be stopped and subject to a search.

Understand that I see that "unintended consequences" can occur. I said as much on the thread about the guy who refuses to provide the password to his laptop that may contain child porn. But the unitended consequences , while distressing, are a product of a free society. Simply put we are not free without these rights. And that right is the ability to move around freely and not subject to searches.

I can't argue that border guards operate under different rules, but I'm wondering why. Why is someone entering the country under more scrutiny that someone out on the streets who clearly broke the law?

I suspect....suspect that is because the visitor is not in your country (or vice versa) yet. I really dont know.

[guyser]

By the way , if asked always answer you do not agree to a search. If they have PC let them get what they need.

If they dont, you will be on your way.

[M.Dancer]

By the way , if asked always answer you do not agree to a search. If they have PC let them get what they need.

If they dont, you will be on your way.

Not likely. They will hold you and either get one or come up with another reason.

[guyser]

Not likely. They will hold you and either get one or come up with another reason.

If they get a warrant then there is nothing one can do. But to get that warrant they will need to provide a compelling reason to the judge.

If pulled over and asked for your drivers licence, you are now being detained. Once they have handed it back, you are now free to go. If they say no to allowing you to go then they are pretty much forced to arrest you.

All this aside, I know what happens on stops. I know that "other reasons" copme about. All I am saying is we need to exercise our rights , or they will be violated. Look at the case of the rental car from Alberta. The OPP pulled him over because of "no front plate" , knowing full well tha law in Alta does not require it. That is a fishing expedition , and wrong.

[Wilber]

I can't argue that border guards operate under different rules, but I'm wondering why. Why is someone entering the country under more scrutiny that someone out on the streets who clearly broke the law?

If you are trying to enter the country, you have no rights. Once they let you in, you have the same rights as a citizen. That's Canada.

I am continually amazed by our system. On the one hand we have a legal system that seems to be doing its best to hamstring the police to the extent they can hardly enforce the law and on the other we have you know who sitting on so called human rights tribunals with the power to persecute Canadians without due process and who have never been convicted of breaking a law.

As I asked before, who protects us from them?

[Muddy]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my Son one day. We were talking about rights. He asked if it was true that he did not have to identify himself to a Cop if he was peacefully walking down the side walk! I told him he was absolutely right. But what if the Cop is looking for a bad guy who fits his discription? Why tie up the Cop from pursueing the bad guy? What if he found out later that the bad guy had raped and murdered someone he loved? Do we not as citizens have a responsibility to help our police in apprehending bad guys by insuering the police we are not the culprit?

Yes we have rights,but we also have a responsibility to our fellow citizens to do our part in keeping the peace.

[August1991]

Look, the only reason why these cases bother people is they invariably arise in drug trafficking scenarios...and it looks bad if a drug trafficker gets a break. But, proper police conduct affects ALL of us. I don't traffick drugs, but have in the past made the error of having open alcohol in the back seat of my car. If the cop that stopped me then had searched all of the private compartments of my car, I'd have been pissed off...and I would have had every right to be...because in Canada, we don't let police oppress our citizens.

This is an Internet forum where we can ask the "what if..." hypotheticals.

We don't let police oppress our citizens? WTF? (We certainly seem happy to let the taxman oppress us - tax me, I'm Canadian.)

I have never quite understood this penchant for "privacy" and I have a suspicion that it's just an extension of a leftist agenda - or an agenda of certain lawyers.

Here's an article referring to Robert Bork, a US judge and one-time Supreme Court nominee:

What kind of behavior is protected by privacy rights? (Bork mentioned incest, wife beating, and price fixing as examples of behavior that might not be protected.) The answer to that question is what divides liberals and conservatives. In seeming to push for a generalized right of privacy, liberals have generally been seeking to protect behavior that social conservatives think of as deviant--using drugs, for example. Liberals have certainly shown no interest in extending the right of privacy to business. The high-minded program for corporations always turns out to involve more and more disclosure.

Fortune

It's curious that drug dealers get off on privacy issues but corporate officers must file all manner of declarations and release personal information.

[guyser]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my Son one day. We were talking about rights. He asked if it was true that he did not have to identify himself to a Cop if he was peacefully walking down the side walk! I told him he was absolutely right. But what if the Cop is looking for a bad guy who fits his discription? Why tie up the Cop from pursueing the bad guy? What if he found out later that the bad guy had raped and murdered someone he loved? Do we not as citizens have a responsibility to help our police in apprehending bad guys by insuering the police we are not the culprit?

Yes we have rights,but we also have a responsibility to our fellow citizens to do our part in keeping the peace.

Probable cause.

If your son looked like the guy the cops were looking for then they can detain him and request ID.

[guyser]

We don't let police oppress our citizens? WTF? (We certainly seem happy to let the taxman oppress us - tax me, I'm Canadian.)

Wont get anyone to argue against that.

I have never quite understood this penchant for "privacy" and I have a suspicion that it's just an extension of a leftist agenda - or an agenda of certain lawyers.

Are you okay with one day coming home from work and finding the police in your house having a look around?

Are you okay with driving to Wonderland one day with car full of wife and kids , hot steamy day only to be pulled over on the side of the highway and ordered out of the car? By the way, when they search everything and leave it on the ground at the back and side of the car, the kids are crying, you now have 20 minutes of work putting it all back in the car and calming everyone down.

It's curious that drug dealers get off on privacy issues but corporate officers must file all manner of declarations and release personal information.

Apples and oranges.

You dont have many privacy rights at work.

I am really surpised at a lot of you guys. You make such knowledgeable arguments on politics and other things, yet so many of you ( ha..not all of you) seem to miss the importance of maintaining your rights.

With the prevalance of video , in public, on the front of cop cars, in peoples personal cars , we are seeing first hand that rights are being abused. Plenty of "things" I used to scoff at , ie " I was abused"..."my rights were violated" as being false I have come to understand that they likely were.

Use it or lose it.

[guyser]

Are you okay with driving to Wonderland one day with car full of wife and kids , hot steamy day only to be pulled over on the side of the highway and ordered out of the car? By the way, when they search everything and leave it on the ground at the back and side of the car, the kids are crying, you now have 20 minutes of work putting it all back in the car and calming everyone down.

That story is basically true.

Although the season was reversed, it was the middle of winter,bone numbing frigid and it occurred on the Trans Canada this side of Thunder Bay.

At the next stop when "they" pulled in, the cops started laughing when they walked in the door.

I will always advocate telling any cop when they ask for a search, the answer is NO. Whether you have anything to hide or not. The answer is always no.

Edited February 29, 2008 by guyser

[Wild Bill]

That story is basically true.

Although the season was reversed, it was the middle of winter,bone numbing frigid and it occurred on the Trans Canada this side of Thunder Bay.

At the next stop when "they" pulled in, the cops started laughing when they walked in the door.

I will always advocate telling any cop when they ask for a search, the answer is NO. Whether you have anything to hide or not. The answer is always no.

Sadly, anyone who assumes cops are ALWAYS "civilized" is naive to an extreme! I've had bad experiences myself. Cops are human beings like anyone else. There are good ones and bad ones. The problem is a bad cop has more ability to commit negative actions.

[guyser]

Sadly, anyone who assumes cops are ALWAYS "civilized" is naive to an extreme! I've had bad experiences myself. Cops are human beings like anyone else. There are good ones and bad ones. The problem is a bad cop has more ability to commit negative actions.

I agree.

One bad one can set the thousand good ones back a long way.

And that gets to the crux of the matter. The "thin blue line" has got to stop. When a good cop sees a bad cop doing something, he has to take it upon himself to stop the conduct, to report the guy, to do something. But it never , ok rarely gets done.

Our own police commissioners son was one of the worst. It makes me thing dad was similar since he stood by his sons side thru the trial. (McCormack)

His son was a no good coke using alcoholic shaking down immigrants for protection money. Shaking down the owners of entertainment businesses in TO.

There is a polarization of the police and the chasm is getting almost too wide to close. It used to be cops lived where they worked, or at least in the city they lived. Not anymore, hell even Fantino didnt live in the city he was Police Chief of. The polarization, however started, has ramifications that lead towards a police state (although we have a long way to get there) and the action of everyone being a suspect for anything.

The police want us to help them, but they do so much toshoot themselves in the foot . Wrong house search warrant , the place gets torn apart before they realize ..oops ! Now who puts the house back together? The guys that did it? Nope. You do. But dont be angry, it was a little mistake.

Politically they have been used as collection agencies for the Govt. Fines, suspensions, enforcing private toll collections which is way out of their mandate (Hwy 407?).

Last weekend they announced a blitz on our roads. Why? It is the middle of winter, traffic was light, yet there they were. The OPP had no less than 5 cars at each location, all manned by cops, on highway ticket collection.They were situated at north of Barrie, Washago, Bracebridge and Huntsville. One cop on the overpass with radar, and four cars on the side ready to take off. Due to my knowledge of how many cops are on duty in Bracebridge washago and huntsville, that meant one car in the station and no one out patrolling those towns.

And that is protection ?

Ever decided to make a report around 9PM at the large OPP station on the east side of Hwy #400 at Barrie? I did, it was to report a kid with a gun behind one the fast food joints on Bayfiled. So I drove over there as I was heading back to the hwy to go to the cottage. Had a bit of a problem.....it was closed for the night. Oh there were people in their, but no one to open the door. The sign said we are closed for the night. Open at 8am.

[FTA Lawyer]

This is an Internet forum where we can ask the "what if..." hypotheticals.

We don't let police oppress our citizens? WTF? (We certainly seem happy to let the taxman oppress us - tax me, I'm Canadian.)

I have never quite understood this penchant for "privacy" and I have a suspicion that it's just an extension of a leftist agenda - or an agenda of certain lawyers.

Here's an article referring to Robert Bork, a US judge and one-time Supreme Court nominee:Fortune

It's curious that drug dealers get off on privacy issues but corporate officers must file all manner of declarations and release personal information.

So, on this board Ezra Levant is a venerable hero for strictly exercising his right to free expression and demanding that the state take no step whatsoever to infringe upon that right, but I am a loony, leftist lawyer for advocating a strict exercise of my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by that very same state?

I ought to welcome unlawful searches of my car and person so long as I am free to bitch about it later in a newspaper?

Because I willingly pay taxes I should willingly let police detain and search me?

I am truly astonished at how few people seem to give a shit about their right to be free from armed state officials intruding on their personal privacy.

I cannot think of any circumstance where I would consent to an armed state officer searching anything of mine. If they have grounds to get a warrant, then they can search pursuant to that authority. If not, they can kindly get away from me.

Why when the law could not be any more clear that the police cannot search a car because they see open booze in it, should we excuse the illegal conduct of the police when it accidentally produces evidence of a crime? The ends do not justify the means.

I've tried to answer before that it does matter what evidence is found as a result of the Charter breach because the final part of the test is a balance of whether exclusion or admissibility would bring the greater disrepute to justice. So, the severed head in the bag might be allowed in where the piece of crack would be excluded.

I just can't see what is so damned difficult about getting a warrant when faced with circumstances that decades of case law tells you that you need a warrant. Surely the police realize that when a judge tosses out evidence for failure to get a warrant that the judge is telling them to get a warrant next time right? The car search issue has been resolved a thousand times over in the exact same way...BUT THE POLICE KEEP SEARCHING WHOLE CARS WITHOUT WARRANTS!!!!! And then they sit back in awe and amazement when their evidence gets tossed?

Wow, who could've seen that coming?

Get a warrant next time. Get a warrant next time. Get a warrant next time. Get a warrant next time. Get a warrant next time.

There, with any luck, 5 police officers will get a warrant next time. I've done my part.

FTA