Unreasonable search...am I a victim?

[kittenOFchaos]

Must be different than in Britain where I think they are allowed to stop and search people at will.

Unless they are in the habit of planting stuff, the public shouldn't have an issue with that save that it is a nuisance. To those carrying drugs and such, I think it is fair for the police to be given a chance to catch you.

Given the title of the thread I thought we'd have some airport security story where Asher got strip searched.

[Ecthy]

In which case the airport security were the victims, not Asher.

[kittenOFchaos]

Originally posted by Ecthy
In which case the airport security were the victims, not Asher.

Bet if he had been strip searched and probed he wouldn't have been complaining neither

[Kidlicious]

You don't have much to complain about Asher. They threw be in dog **** and I complained less than you.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Japher
you must be smoking it already

seeing as you're a Bears fan

And a Cubs fan as well...

Normally, I would agree with Slowws point... NEVER EVER consent to a search. But Asher raises some good points, and I have to agree with him allowing the search in this case. The tactics they used to Asher to agree are appalling, but it won't be the first time crap like this has happened. Sometimes, you have to do what Asher did, and come to the decision that even though you are in the right, it isn't a battle worth fighting.

[Arrian]

Tactics were questionable at best, Asher signing the form is understandable, and in the end, nothing came of it.

Let it go, Asher. No, it wasn't really right, but in the end it's just not that big a deal.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ming
Sometimes, you have to do what Asher did, and come to the decision that even though you are in the right, it isn't a battle worth fighting.

You sound like my father, who could never convince my older brother of this.

[Flubber]

THis is from 1990 but at that time the SCC approved of "random stops". It therefore makes it difficult to complain about a given traffic stop . R v, Ladouceur .

Note that 5-4 upheld the right for police to do random stops essentially anywhere for no reason.

I agree with the synopsis of the dissent although even the dissent would not exclude the evidence garnered from the stop

Appellant was stopped while driving his car in a random police search to ensure that his papers were in order and that he had a valid driver's licence. The officers did not suspect that the appellant was acting unlawfully. Appellant admitted that he knew that his driver's licence was suspended when he was asked for his driver's licence, ownership and vehicle insurance documents. A Justice of the Peace found him guilty of driving while his licence was suspended contrary to s. 35 of the Highway Traffic Act and the Provincial Court (Criminal Division) and the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. The constitutional questions stated before this Court queried: (1) if s. 189a(1) of the Highway Traffic Act was inconsistent with ss. 7, 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the extent that it authorized the random stop of a motor vehicle and its driver by a police officer acting without any reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed when such stop was not part of an organized program; and (2) if so, whether s. 189a(1) could be justified pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter?



Held: The appeal should be dismissed.



Per Lamer, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ.: Appellant was detained in violation of s. 9 of the Charter. The police officers assumed control over his movement by a demand or direction and the legal consequences of the detention were significant. The detention was arbitrary in that the decision as to whether the stop should be made lay in the absolute discretion of the police officers.



Sections 7 and 8 of the Charter were not violated. No "seizure" within the meaning of s. 8 occurred here. It was unnecessary to decide whether these random stops infringed s. 7 since it has been determined that routine check random stops violate s. 9 of the Charter.



Section 189a(1) of the Highway Traffic Act was saved by s. 1 of the Charter. The power of a police officer to stop motor vehicles at random is derived from s. 189a(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and is thus prescribed by law. The authority also has been justified by this Court as a prescription of the common law.



The statistics relating to the carnage on the highways substantiate a pressing and substantial concern which the government was properly addressing through the legislation in question and the random stops. A more specific aspect of this concern related to areas where the probability of accidents can be reduced: the mechanical fitness of the vehicle, the possession of a valid licence and proper insurance, and the sobriety of the driver. They are directly pertinent to the question of random stopping.



The means chosen was proportional or appropriate to those pressing concerns. The random stop is rationally connected and carefully designed to achieve safety on the highways and impairs as little as possible the rights of the driver. It does not so severely trench on individual rights that the legislative objective is outweighed by the abridgement of the individual's rights. Indeed, stopping vehicles is the only way of checking a driver's licence and insurance, the mechanical fitness of a vehicle, and the sobriety of the driver.



Deterrence is a critical aspect of the random routine check. The suspension of the driver's licence for driving offences is important in that the court can impose lighter jail terms for the benefit of the offender and yet ensure that society is protected. Licence suspensions, however, must be enforceable to be an effective means of punishment. A real element of risk of detection of driving by unlicensed drivers is necessary for the suspension of a licence to be an effective remedy. Random stops supply the only effective deterrent.



To recognize the validity of the random routine check is to recognize reality. This form of deterrent is a plausible response to the general difficulties of establishing such programs due to fiscal constraints and shortages of personnel and due to the impossibility of establishing an effective organized program in rural areas in particular.



The random routine check does not so severely trench upon the s. 9 right so as to outweigh the legislative objective. Mechanisms are already in place to prevent abuse by law enforcement officers. Officers can stop persons only for legal reasons -- in this case reasons related to driving a car such as checking the driver's licence and insurance, the sobriety of the driver and the mechanical fitness of the vehicle. Once stopped the only questions that may justifiably be asked are those related to driving offences. Any further, more intrusive procedures could only be undertaken based upon reasonable and probable grounds. Where a stop is found to be unlawful, the evidence from the stop could well be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.



Similar powers have been legislatively conferred upon police officers in other free and democratic societies regarding the stopping of motor vehicles.



Per Dickson C.J. and Wilson, La Forest and Sopinka JJ.: The unlimited right of police officers to stop motor vehicles without any reason cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The evidence here, however, should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.



The random stop constituted an arbitrary detention. The Crown's efforts to discharge its s. 1 onus must be viewed in the context of the s. 9 breaches sanctioned to date in meeting the objective of ridding the highways of dangerous drivers. Police officers are entitled to stop motorists at organized check points as part of the R.I.D.E. program to provide a roadside screening test of sobriety and to check for licences, insurance and mechanical fitness. The organized check point is available, therefore, as a means of detection of the unlicensed driver. This case may be viewed as the last straw. If sanctioned, a police officer could stop any vehicle at any time, in any place, without having any reason to do so. For the motorist, this would mean a total negation of the freedom from arbitrary detention guaranteed by s. 9 of the Charter.



The Crown has not demonstrated that this unrestricted power is a necessary addition to the impressive array of enforcement methods which are available. Random checking at a stationary, predetermined location infringes the right much less than the unlimited right contended for. It is somewhat more carefully designed to serve enforcement, and is less intrusive and not as open to abuse as the unlimited power sought to be justified. The roving random stop, by contrast, would permit any individual officer to stop any vehicle, at any time, at any place. The decision may be based on any whim. The unlimited power has the potential of being much more intrusive and occasioning a greater invasion of privacy.

[Flubber]

Sorry to get all "legal" on you but the bottom line is that the Court decided that the police can stop people. So if you complained about the stop itself, they could just say " random stop". I assume they checked your licence and registration.

The search part-- again I don't think you have any grounds to complain. thye asked if they could do a search and you said YES-- I know why you said yes and even understand and accept you rationale. But in the absence of some threat or something, you are just left with the general feeling that if you don't do what the police say, they will THEN do something wrong -- ie bogus ticket . . . some other hassle. You are probably correct in that . .. BUT I can't imagine you will ever get any decision-maker to assume that that would be the case

[Sprayber]

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

You all must live in some ****ed up areas because 90% of the law enforcment people who I know and have had dealing with are neither lazy or facists (as odin so melodramticaly put it) Then again there is that 10% of those who are complete *******s who let the job go to their head and should never have been allowed to have a badge in the first place. As far as the OP is concerned, without being there and seeing the attitude of the officer I can't say what catagory he would fall under. It sounds like to me that they have been given a set of things to look for and they are pretty much doing just that. In that case they are just following procedure. Then again I understand how Asher feels cause he wasn't doing anything wrong and like me he expects to drive down the road and not feel he should be watching out for police.

Saying all that, I firmly believe those with authority should be held to a much higher standard than the rest of society. Even though they are human with everything that goes along with that, they have too much power not to be to a higher standard of conduct.

[Wezil]

What Flubber said.

Btw Asher - did you get the cop's name?

[rah]

When I was younger and my hair was considerably longer, a buddy and I were hauling a uhaul on our way back from a stay on the west cost. The cops stopped us and informed us that the car and it's occupents (us) matched a discription from a recent crime report and made us unload EVERYTHING for a search and asked us for receipts on audio equipment that obviously looked used. They were yanking our chain since we had long hair. They tried real hard not to laugh during the incident. Once we had finished unloading they just left. About 30 minutes after we repacked we passed them sitting in their car on medium strip and they just pointed at us laughing.

What they did was wrong, but it's only common sense to go along with what you're told when you're sitting in the dessert with a couple of guys with loaded weapons (whether they're cops or not.)

We ended up being happy that that's the only way we were harassed. It could have been worse.

[Blaupanzer]

Canadian law, as pointed out above, is not US law. If you had not consented to the search, the police may have the power to seize the vehicle and impound it. After all, according to the officers, its identification elements (license plates) were obscured.

The stop was BS. The reason was probably about harassing Eastern Canadians as much as anything. However, if you wouldn't go back there to contest a bad ticket, then you probably do not want to bew stuck there for a few days either. I would not have signed the consent in a similar situation in the US. Unlike Che, I have the power of my convictions -- stand up when your rights are challenged. However, I'm not sure Canadians have those same rights, and I'm quite sure US citizens do not when in Canada.

Bottom line, if I had been where Asher was in Canada, I would have signed too. In the US, no way.

[asleepathewheel]

In the US, don't consent to anything. anything. ever.

also, always use a turn signal*. always.

/s your friendly neighborhood criminal defense attorney

[asleepathewheel]

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

child