AngusThermopyle Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 This is of particular interest to me as my GF likes to change the air freshener in our vehicle regularly. Sometimes when we are on lengthy trips we also grab a bite to eat and don't always dispose of the containers right away. The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan says a strong smell of air freshener in a vehicle is a good enough reason for police officers to investigate for drug-running.The court's ruling, published last week, concerned charges against an Ontario man who was stopped for speeding just outside of Moose Jaw, Sask., on Dec. 13, 2006. RCMP officers testified in the case that the driver was nervous, there were lots of empty food and drink containers in the man's truck and a very strong odour of air freshener was emanating from the cab. Dubious Decision Quite simply it never occured to me that having a fresh smelling vehicle and some fast food wrappers would automatically label me as a drug trafficker. Personally I do not believe this constitutes just cause, perhaps this judge should rethink her decision on this matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 The imagine of this judge in my mind would be a 58 year old female with black rimmed glasses who read a lot of Agatha Cristie as a girl. Very clever detective work.....hummmmm - air fresher hugh? Must be to hide a smell ----------that's it! The smell of fifty pounds of high grade bud! AND the food wrappers.................hummmmmmmm "I heard back in university that people who smoke pot get hungry......................YES! THATs it! DRUG RUNNERS.................. the cop and the judge are so clever.....and they just wasted 28 thousand dollars of hard earned tax payers money. BUT - the lawyers got paid - the judge got paid - the crown got paid - the legal staff back at the office got paid ----------- they all got paid for doing nothing other than creating work for themselves - now that stinks! They need some air freshener. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 This is of particular interest to me as my GF likes to change the air freshener in our vehicle regularly. Sometimes when we are on lengthy trips we also grab a bite to eat and don't always dispose of the containers right away. Quite simply it never occured to me that having a fresh smelling vehicle and some fast food wrappers would automatically label me as a drug trafficker. Personally I do not believe this constitutes just cause, perhaps this judge should rethink her decision on this matter. This is profiling fast food eaters. I smell a Charter challenge. Really, all the cops need to do is ask the following question to detect, well, marijuana at least: "Sir, have you ever wondered what it is and when you found out that it wasn't did you think that it wasn't it after all or was there a persistent feeling you were missing out? Or would you like some chips?" If they answer that they would like some chips, bust them right away. Mind you, clever marijuana users might try to answer the first question. In which case they will go on long enough trying to explain that the tell-tale dry mouth will kick in resulting in visible bits of foam appearing at the corner of their mouths. Bust them too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Really I believe the main point of this article is the manner in which it high lights how authorities are playing fast and loose with just cause. In this case the guilt of the person involved becomes secondary to the issue of erroding rights. While still in the Millitary I served for a time on the base defence force. As a component of this service we recieved basic MP trining, Just cause was covered quite thoroughly in this training. Given what we were taught this case would certainly fail the just cause requirements resoundingly. This is what I find so disturbing about this case, it would appear that this judge decided to ignore the rules that already exist regarding just cause and simply move the goalposts in order to further a personal agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Really I believe the main point of this article is the manner in which it high lights how authorities are playing fast and loose with just cause. In this case the guilt of the person involved becomes secondary to the issue of erroding rights. While still in the Millitary I served for a time on the base defence force. As a component of this service we recieved basic MP trining, Just cause was covered quite thoroughly in this training. Given what we were taught this case would certainly fail the just cause requirements resoundingly. This is what I find so disturbing about this case, it would appear that this judge decided to ignore the rules that already exist regarding just cause and simply move the goalposts in order to further a personal agenda. "Moving the goalposts" is precisely the correct term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Stop the car - get out and go to a garbage container and get rid of the rot...why breath chemicals and have a sense of false cleanlyness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Stop the car - get out and go to a garbage container and get rid of the rot...why breath chemicals and have a sense of false cleanlyness? I think you are missing the point here. It isn't about the cleanliness or lack thereoff of some peoples vehicles but rather the fact that this judge appears to believe that just cause is a mere inconvenience that stands in the way of a desired outcome. As such it appears this judge believes they are justified in re-writing the rules to suit what they want to see happen. As an interesting side note that appears to have some relationship to this concept I heard about a case where the Police actually robbed some people so they could listen in on their phone cals after the robbery in order to gather evidence against them. I'm not sure if this is legal, does anyone else know if it would be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) As an interesting side note that appears to have some relationship to this concept I heard about a case where the Police actually robbed some people so they could listen in on their phone cals after the robbery in order to gather evidence against them. I'm not sure if this is legal, does anyone else know if it would be? You're not sure if robbery is illegal? Yea, it is. Edited July 14, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Oh so funny. I think you know what I meant Guyser. Just in case you didn't though I shall rephrase what I said. What I was wondering about is the legality of this operation. Is it possible for the police to obtain a warrant permitting them to commit a robbery in the course of an investigation in order to conclude the investigation? Personally I don't think it is but then I don't profess to be an expert in such legal niceties. Would you know about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Oh so funny. Fair enough I think you know what I meant Guyser. Just in case you didn't though I shall rephrase what I said. What I was wondering about is the legality of this operation. Is it possible for the police to obtain a warrant permitting them to commit a robbery in the course of an investigation in order to conclude the investigation? Personally I don't think it is but then I don't profess to be an expert in such legal niceties. Would you know about this? I doubt it. They can however get a warrant to sieze goods , which is not stealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 They can however get a warrant to sieze goods , which is not stealing.So how do undercover operations work? It would be rather difficult for police to be credible undercover agents if they had no ability to break the law as part of their cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 It's an interesting question. Uncontroversially, a certain amount of lawbreaking is allowed. An undercover officer can be an accessory to a crime...at least, an accessory after the fact. There are definitely limits, but I have no idea what they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Perhaps I should post the news article about this. Would you guys be interested in reading the actual news account of this? Perhaps a new thread topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 Sir, have you ever wondered what it is and when you found out that it wasn't did you think that it wasn't it after all or was there a persistent feeling you were missing out? Or would you like some chips?" I guess the point is that --- if anyone can make any kind of sense out of this question he is either 1) Stoned 2) insane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 You're not sure if robbery is illegal? Yea, it is. Wacking you with a phone book up side the head until confess is also illegal ...but it works...Most Crown Attorneys don't care if you are truely guilty or not _its the conviction that counts...more convictions on your Crown Attorney's resume` - the closer you are to becoming a judge - and heaven help anyone who stands before this twisted system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 I guess the point is that --- if anyone can make any kind of sense out of this question he is either 1) Stoned 2) insane No they think you are stoned - the clue is that he is offering you some snack food...chips ----yummy... maybe both of you are high and THINK you have some sort of cosmic communication going on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.