Warantless Wiretaps

[William Ashley]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/911552--supreme-court-will-hear-case-over-warrantless-emergency-wiretaps

Other than this case - do we know how many times a tap has been conducted without a warrant?

Is there some way to verify the validity of the police concern?

The case is being appealed, but I am suprised that things that would be search are provisional as a means to gather information. How long does it take to set up a tap, vs. getting ahold of a judge/justice to obtain a warrant.

Is there no "judge/justice" on call to handle emergency police situations?

[guyser]

Your tinfoil is too tight.

If a warrantless tap was needed , and it shows up in court, then the Judge will know about the reasons behind and he/she can either deem it inadmissable or allow it based on the info provided.

If a cop say, "meh, it was a hunch" then it gets tossed (presumably)....other compelling reason may leave it in the case.

[GostHacked]

Your tinfoil is too tight.

If a warrantless tap was needed , and it shows up in court, then the Judge will know about the reasons behind and he/she can either deem it inadmissable or allow it based on the info provided.

If a cop say, "meh, it was a hunch" then it gets tossed (presumably)....other compelling reason may leave it in the case.

Protocol must be followed to prevent abuse. We as citizens are told to follow and obey the laws/rules. But the-powers-that-be seem to be exempt from these rules. If their intelligence is good, then no problem getting a warrant. Your privacy was violated on a hunch, and that information is retained somewhere.

[Saipan]

Is there no "judge/justice" on call to handle emergency police situations?

The judge was right (this time) Canada is still not a police state. Police already went too far to run the country. We can do very well without that.

[guyser]

Protocol must be followed to prevent abuse.

It was, thats why I stated the tinfoil was too tight.

[The_Squid]

A sound judgement in favour of our rights. Kudos to the judge in Vancouver who made the ruling. Hopefully the Supreme Court will do the right thing and reject the appeal.

[Moonbox]

Stop posting William Ashley. I guarantee that if you took a week or so to relax and enjoy life, rather than stressing out and looking for something to wet your bed about every day, you'd be a much happier person.

You never know. A girl might even want to talk to you.

[guyser]

......than stressing out and looking for something to wet your bed about every day, you'd be a much happier person.

Not to mention drier.

[William Ashley]

The judge stayed the decision for at least 18 months to allow for appeal.

Stop posting William Ashley. I guarantee that if you took a week or so to relax and enjoy life,

I am not a stressful person. Stuff like this doesn't effect me for various reasons.

rather than stressing out and looking for something to wet your bed about every day, you'd be a much happier person.

Its not my concern, its my concerns for peoples rights and freedoms. The concept of a police state whether domestic or foreign is contrary to the premise of equality and freedom. There are massive consequences to people when an oligarchy exists that is able to know all about people, and yet the protections do not exist to prevent those people from abusing that information.

It can make sense to have "organizations" that can do these things seperately.

Where for instance one organization that knows the peoples secrets, are they themselves monitored seperately.

And those people that monitor them are in turn monitored by other people

and so on.

But when it is one way it doesn't work.

You never know. A girl might even want to talk to you.

There are plenty of oppourtunities for females to chat with me.

[dre]

There shouldnt be any warrantless wiretaps period.

[Wilber]

Guyser is right, you can't foresee every situation and there will be occasions where the police will have to operate on their own initiative to save lives. It will be up to the courts to decide if their actions were warranted. It is a lot to ask a judge to make an instant life or death decision over the phone, in the middle of the night, when he has had no opportunity to see how the situation has unfolded first hand. If a judge said no and you knew someone could die as a result, what would you do? If it was your life, what would you want the police to do?

Edited December 24, 2010 by Wilber

[Saipan]

Guyser is right, you can't foresee every situation and there will be occasions where the police will have to operate on their own initiative to save lives.

Like they saved Robert Dziekanski?

And other paranoids shot to kill by police?

[Wilber]

Like they saved Robert Dziekanski?

And other paranoids shot to kill by police?

You're right, let's get rid of all of them.