Unreasonable search...am I a victim?

[GePap]

Well, there does seem to be a complaint system in Ontario:

http://www.occps.ca/englishwebsite/process/publiccomplaints/complaintspamphlet.asp

[Grandpa Troll]

Well, I am a former Federal Officer, I can say 100% that I used the Federal Search and Seizure Laws to my advantage.

Some lands are just that, not sure Asher if you were in a territory with some sort of Provincial or Federal Authority governing that or not.

But, if you live anywhere near where you are complaining about, be advised Cops are human and lawful or not, The Blue Line does exist. The Blue Line is a code where ya mess with one you mess with all. Not saying this will happen or not just saying beware of what your prepared to do.

Was it just offensive and now your ok and no real damage was done?

Was it very humiliating much like when you get Pwnd aboard Apolyton? Then by all means, say something.

Will something be done about it? Maybe you get an official letter stating we are BLAH BLAH BLAH concerned and appreciate your BLAH BLAH BLAH and basically jerk you off to shut you up.

Maybe this is an ongoing and unreported set of events or maybe it does go on because no one has stepped up to the plate.

Some departments, not so much the bigger ones, but smaller departments have so called "Profile" hits, young, long haired citizens moving along a certain route, fit the profile so they stop with creative reasons.

This happens much more than most will admit.

Your the one who has the problem, justy remember when your toe hurts because something fell on it, it hurts and hurts likes hades. Then your finger stick out to point something out and it gets jammed real bad. Was it worth pointing out this wrong?

That my friend is up to you.

Remember, What is wagered and what is gained (Nothing ventured nothing gained) are not the only two questions when challenging the system.

A Third and even more important question must be asked and can only be answered by the participating parties: What can be lost?

Good luck

Gramps

[Asher]

The OPP are a Provincial police force that are for rural areas and highway patrol. Their jurisdiction is strictly provincial and outside of metropolitan areas with their own police force (eg, Toronto).

They're very large and likely regional. The problem with this was I encountered it in the middle of nowhere -- about 15 hours by car from where I will be living. Otherwise I'd not consent to the search and I'd have taken it to court if necessary on principle, but I will not go back there...

[GePap]

Your problem would most likely not the the "thin blue line", but the fact that its a "he said", "he said" situation. You have no witnesses as far as you have stated, and the officer will have your signed authorization, and did not in fact give you any summonses you could contest. You have photos, but they show a search you agreed to, so their evidenciary worth is small.

Besides photos, do you actually know who the officers were? Names, badge numbers or whatever identifying number is used for these officers? You should ask if the complaint becomes part of some permament record, and if that record has any bearing on the future career of the officers.

[Odin]

Cops are fascist *******s.

[joncha]

No, they are cops. Fascists wouldn't have bothered with the consent form, and would have imprisoned or killed (or imprisoned, then killed) him for good measure. They also would have done so as part of a political campaign.

You lessen the problems of both by comparing the two.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Odin
Cops are fascist *******s.

Until you need one

[Colonâ„¢]

Yeah, then they're just lazy ****ers.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Sprayber


Until you need one

amen

[Odin]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
Yeah, then they're just lazy ****ers.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by GePap


Two issues:

1. The pretext stop. Asher has a right to make a complaint about that, if he really believes that there was no valid reason for the officer to stop his vehicle. (assuming there is an authority that would handle such a complaint about a procedural issue)

2. While Asher did consent, you could argue that it was not good faith consent because it was granted under the "threat" of a summons. Consent should be a good faith consent for it to be valid. How reasonable Asher's belief that he was under the threat of a summons would be the sticking point.

Note that the following comes from my experience as an American with a mother who's a deputy DA; not sure how much this applies to Canada, but for America it's correct.

1) is perhaps valid to complain about. You won't get anywhere by doing so, though, I suspect; if the cops were following what they were asked to do (stop people with lots of stuff) then their superiors will back them, so it's unlikely they'd punish them. This just isn't a big enough deal that anything would happen. No offense, Donegeal, but cops make illegal stops all the time. The only time anything happens to them is when the DA gets mad at them for screwing up a stop such that the evidence is invalid

2) is absolutely wrong. Perhaps the fact that the police did that was wrong, perhaps not; however, there was *no* coercion used, and *no* implicit threat. They at no point said that he would go to jail or be fined if he didn't agree to the search. The fact that Asher felt pressure to do so may well be true, but it's not actionable.

There's no point in suing, at least there wouldn't be in the US. Sure, they may have violated his civil rights, but there wasn't any monetary damage, and it was a very minor issue; and there's nothing for the court to do in terms of preventing an ongoing violation. Very little money if any would be awarded (you can't get punitive damages in any meaningful amount without actual damages, as I understand it) and the court wouldn't likely do anything beyond reprimanding the officer. (Imran, correct me here if i'm wrong...)

Basically ... just suck it up, this is what we give up for living in a policed society. You coiuld have said no, and chose not to; not a bad choice i'd suggest, particularly given the 'authority effect', which despite my not knowing its real name is a demonstrated psychological effect that people when confronted by an authority tend to do whatever they're told due to being taught such as children. Except for commies, of course Anyway, trust me when I say that cops pretty much do this everywhere ... perhaps not our good cop Donegeal, but i've a lot of cop stories and this is pretty much how it goes. They know the rules, and they believe they're doing the right thing by ensuring a safe society through using those rules to their advantage whenever possible.

On their side, it's largely because the rules are so stacked against them (at least here) that it's very frustrating, and that leads them to want to use those rules to their advantage whenever possible, to balance things. It really is very frustrating, as defense attorneys (and defenders) can pull a lot of #$%* and get away with it, but ONE slipup by a police officer or the ADA prosecuting the case, and it's over.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by GePap
Your problem would most likely not the the "thin blue line", but the fact that its a "he said", "he said" situation.

Yeah... this is why a complaint would go no where; however, you could still complain about it and start/extend a paper trail of questionable traffic stops that may lead to a more indepth investigation.

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
Yeah, then they're just lazy ****ers.

On the contrary... I try to be lazy all the time!

Originally posted by snoopy369
No offense, Donegeal, but cops make illegal stops all the time.

I'd be wrong to say it never happened. Its impossible to screen out all the bad apples.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Japher
isn't Ming an Ontario Policeman?

Can I have some of what you must be smoking

[Japher]

you must be smoking it already

seeing as you're a Bears fan

[Ecthy]

And seeing how often you mention you'd like something of what others were supposdly smoking.