Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

I'm going with Dayseed on this one. The cops didn't plant the drugs and these guys were very suspicious. While I pay lip service to their rights, I'm happy as hell they got nailed.
The fact that they took it this far is proof that their connected to some serious drug money. Boo hoo hoo.

   

I don't know if the search and seizure is unlawful. He started to pull them over for a missing front plate, realized it was Albertan, but as he was already in the act of pulling them over, he probably thought he should give some sort of explanation of his action, instead of waving them on. So he asked them some questions, - which cops always do - and their answers were suspicious. At that point, wouldn't he then have a legitimate reason to check the vehicle out?
Should he have just waved them on without any explanation as to why he flashed them?

   

I'm gettin pissed off! Tried to 'delete' this particular post 4 times!

Where is delete this post?

   

That would be a complete waste of time for the cops.

2 exwives eh!

   

If you're openly covered in blood, or there's a smoking gun or syringe in plain view, nobody's gonna give a shit WHY you got pulled over. Just like if you chop someone's head off in your front window with the drapes open, you aren't walking because there was no warrant.
Plain view. Search. 2 different things.

   

I'm not so confidant of that..

   

unless you kill the cop too

   

But isn't it the same principle? The cop didn't have 'a reason' to stop me in the first place!

   

My neighbour was drunk, driving toward a RIDE stop. He turned around, in view of the cops and was pulled over and charged with impaired. He beat it at trial on that very point. Maybe he was turning around because he forgot his housekeys or whatever. No reasonable grounds to stop him, therefore inadmissible evidence.

   

We are fucking ourselves over allowing this point of law. The way it is now, the cops can only be 'reactive' rather than 'proactive'!

   

Such as ?

Not trying to be coy, just wondering.

   

So society would be better off if they could kick in my door just in case I were beating my wife?

'Reactive' is the way they were chartered. They investigate crime. Prevention is in most cases, impossible. Giving them 'proactive' weapons is trading freedoms for security.

   

I agree with you to a point Caleb. As it is right now we have virtually tied their (cops) hands. Believe me when I say that I have had substantial interaction with law enforcement and still I feel that they need a lot more leeway. This of course should go hand-in hand with common sense!

   

No, I think if the police want to do something, they must have at least the hint of
a reason to do it. I currently live where the police regularly pull people over
for absolutely no reason, they just sit and wait for you to come by.

It opens the door for the police to do all kinds of interesting things,
which I dont agree with.

Good faith/Bad faith.. How do you know the officer acted in good faith ?
How do you know the civie acts in bad faith ?
Doesnt that assume the police are always honest, and civilians are always
lying ?
sorry, not buying that...

   

DrCaleb,

Firstly, you're never going to be satisfied if you keep believing that the search of the trunk flowed directly from the Alberta plate. It was the intervening terrible story told by the two that caused the search of the trunk. The pulling over and the search are unrelated. That's why the stop was in violation of S.7 of the Charter.

The reason I raise the good faith bad faith argument is that if you want to strip the cop of his good faith in searching the trunk because their stories stunk, you're going to strip all people of a good faith defence. If you ignore good faith, you're going to wind up in some bizarro comic-book world where the rule of law is absolute. Were you speeding on the way to the hospital to get your pregnant wife there to give birth? Too bad, you exceeded the speed limit. Did you kill a man trying to kill you? Too bad, a man is dead and you caused it. In both of those cases, there are good damn reasons for breaking the law and judges are expected to weigh those mitigating factors into their decisions of guilt.

The cop didn't spot two local assholes he hated and then pulled them over to plant evidence. He pulled over a car he shouldn't have and then investigated when he thought he serendipitously discovered a crime. His intentions were good; does that matter to people? Look at the above two examples and think about it again.

Martin,

Don't go to generalizations to sweep the particulars of this case under the rug. It does my points a dishonest disservice. In this case, I believe the cop. He discovered material evidence in their SUV. The two accused each told wildly different and inconsistent stories...how are they both telling contradictory versions of the truth?

To address your generalizations of always believing police and not bad guys, I quoted you R v. Land. If you don't know the particulars of that case, the police lied horribly in wiretap affidavits to get them authorized. The courts tore them a new one. I don't always believe the police, I examine each case as it comes along. Oftentimes they're telling what appears to be good, reasonable truth.

Just like our judges are supposed to do.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next