TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conviction
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak prevention > fixing an already existing problem.

Uh huh, and just how far are you willing to take this ends-justify-the-means argument? Would you consent to having your home searched on the basis of an anonymous tip without a warrant? Or would you consent to having a body-cavity search after leaving the club (because, you know, everybody does drugs in there)?

Where do you draw the line?

(Don't answer that rhetorical question - it's already been answered, that's why we have a constitution.)

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut (Don't answer that rhetorical question - it's already been answered, that's why we have a constitution.)

Our constitution has so many holes in it that it is proving itself to be almost completely useless. Im sure it was designed that way too.

the rules for homes vs cars are not the same in regards to warrants. (see: if a cop pulls you over and sees a roach in your ash tray he can search the vehicle without warrant.) Your home is not the same thing, and as much as you might argue it is digi you still need to hit the gym, brush your teeth and get a haircut.

i do not agree with the policy having no possibility of return of items if they are found to be for lawful purposes)

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak the rules for homes vs cars are not the same in regards to warrants. (see: if a cop pulls you over and sees a roach in your ash tray he can search the vehicle without warrant.) Your home is not the same thing, and as much as you might argue it is digi you still need to hit the gym, brush your teeth and get a haircut. i do not agree with the policy having no possibility of return of items if they are found to be for lawful purposes)

I would agree with you here. A car and a house are slightly different although just cause is needed or should be needed in both situations.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon and you look like a huge cunnt but you dont see us making a scene about it.

Look like a huge cunt? I AM a huge cunt. Lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I would agree with you here. A car and a house are slightly different although just cause is needed or should be needed in both situations.

so would we agree that if you could get your stuff back, that this procedure might not be such a bad thing other than the inconvenience?

as is i do not agree with this either, but i can still see some merit to it.

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak so would we agree that if you could get your stuff back, that this procedure might not be such a bad thing other than the inconvenience? as is i do not agree with this either, but i can still see some merit to it.

i can see cops seizing stuff just to inconvenience your life because he doesnt like the way you look or he was hitting on your girlfriend and she gave him the cold shoulder.

I'm with you Jay... I grow more nervous every day when I see these things consistently getting through, and further, being supported by an uninformed general public.

Guess the lesson of the day ends up being: if you don't want to fall in line, get in jail. And oh, by the way, that line changes and becomes narrower every day.

Sad, sad, sad.

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak the rules for homes vs cars are not the same in regards to warrants. (see: if a cop pulls you over and sees a roach in your ash tray he can search the vehicle without warrant.)

Actually, the rules are pretty much the same. If you open your front door for a cop and you have drugs or weapons or other illegal items in plain view, he can search your home without a warrant. I think it's actually called the "plain view doctrine".

The point is that (a) the cop has to actually be able to see evidence of illegal activity, not just suspect it, and (b) you either have to consent to the search, or they need to have probable cause.

So you're wrong on both counts. The rules ARE the same, and this falls well outside of the rules: there was no probable cause, only suspicion, and there was nothing actually illegal in plain view (or even anything hidden).

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak so would we agree that if you could get your stuff back, that this procedure might not be such a bad thing other than the inconvenience?

Absolutely not! This could very easily be used not only by police to harass and threaten citizens, but also by disgruntled friends, neighbours, exes, etc., calling in "tips".

Earth to elFreak, the sentence in the Charter of Rights that says "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure", that's referring to this, right here. It's very specifically worded to go AGAINST the "prevention" concept.

We don't live in a police state, or at least we're not supposed to. Innocent until proven guilty. Police should not have the ability to seize property that they can't prove is related to criminal activity, especially money. I can think of a million and one perfectly innocuous reasons for someone to be carrying around a lot of cash.

I'm torn with this...I mean drugs are illegal and if they smelt them - then technically I suppose it is their duty to investigate.

Should marijuna be illegal; debatable.

It is and therefore action should be taken to investigate.

I suppose if a man driving a "kidnapper" safari repairvan was stopped and a cop noticed a my little pony bag stowed in the back during an "amber alert" we'd like to think that the cop would do due dilligence. ie: investigate.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I find it interesting that its mostly provincial liberal governments that have enacted this. Although the new conservative search and seizure law proposal is really disturbing to me as well

Actually, it was the Mike Harris gov't who passed the "Ontario�s Civil Remedies Act" in 2001.

but I guess you're off the hook by saying "mostly"

This was in the news a while back...

What your article neglected to say, that along with the smell of pot and his cash, he also had the typical professional pot-growing high-intensity light lallast, its connecting gear and exhaust fan found it common grow-op houses.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie What your article neglected to say, that along with the smell of pot and his cash, he also had the typical professional pot-growing high-intensity light lallast, its connecting gear and exhaust fan found it common grow-op houses.

I would consider that to be suspicious, and arguably grounds for a search. But they didn't actually find anything illegal, and there was no evidence whatsoever that the property they seized (money) was connected to illegal activities. It's one step below even circumstantial evidence.

Maybe the equipment really was for pot growing, but the money was his savings and he just wanted to skip town and possibly grow it somewhere where it was legal. It's totally hypothetical, but without evidence to the contrary, we can't just assume he was a dealer.

this thread reminded me of a video i saw last month..

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I would consider that to be suspicious, and arguably grounds for a search. But they didn't actually find anything illegal, and there was no evidence whatsoever that the property they seized (money) was connected to illegal activities. It's one step below even circumstantial evidence. Maybe the equipment really was for pot growing, but the money was his savings and he just wanted to skip town and possibly grow it somewhere where it was legal. It's totally hypothetical, but without evidence to the contrary, we can't just assume he was a dealer.

I totally get ya... But consider this...

If a guy is hiding in the woods behind a schoolyard, seen observing school children from behind trees. He's carrying a napsack. He's found by a teacher who calls the police. Police arrive and aprehend him. His knapsack is searched, and young children in provacative pictures were found, along with plasting fastenner ties, duct tape and rope.

How much really is being close to obvious? There are too many real sickos out there that get off on technicalities. Guilt may not be proven in court, but intent can be obvious sometimes.

p.s. the above was a true story that occured in Newmarket 2 years ago

There are many reasons the officers could have smelt marijuana that didn't involve him growing or even smoking it. The point is, they had no reason to arrest him and he was set free so why was he assumed to in possession of the proceeds of crime. If they could prove he was involved in crime he should have been arrested but he wasn't. Yet he was still punished without a court date or a chance to defend himself. A clear violation of his right to be treated innocent until found guilty. Apparently thats not a right anymore.

Same with the new .05 vs. 08 for drinking and driving. If the law is .08 then why are people being treated like crimminals when they blow a .05. Why are there cars impounded at a cost to them? Will we soon be getting tickets for doing 80 in a 90 zone because we were close to speeding?

And yes, once in a while a pervert gets off on a technicality. That doesn't mean we do away with the charter of rights.

quote:

Originally posted by mute79 this thread reminded me of a video i saw last month..

lol... what a beligerant bastard. There were a lot of edits, so I'm sure he cout out the worse stuff.

It turned out he got what he deserved the next time he drove through the checkpoint;

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie lol... what a beligerant bastard. There were a lot of edits, so I'm sure he cout out the worse stuff. It turned out he got what he deserved the next time he drove through the checkpoint;

Umm, you need to investigate this more. He posted a video with recordings of that assault form his cam and the border patrol's.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie lol... what a beligerant bastard. There were a lot of edits, so I'm sure he cout out the worse stuff. It turned out he got what he deserved the next time he drove through the checkpoint;

how is it that he deserved to get 11 stiches on his forehead, for doing absolutely nothing wrong?!

quote:

Originally posted by mute79 how is it that he deserved to get 11 stiches on his forehead, for doing absolutely nothing wrong?!

being an ass

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak so would we agree that if you could get your stuff back, that this procedure might not be such a bad thing other than the inconvenience? as is i do not agree with this either, but i can still see some merit to it.

When it comes to the police they should only confiscate if charges are laid. Otherwise they should let you be. As Eddie Greenspan said, you shouldnt have to always justify yourself to the police.

quote:

Originally posted by 7-4-7 I'm torn with this...I mean drugs are illegal and if they smelt them - then technically I suppose it is their duty to investigate. Should marijuna be illegal; debatable. It is and therefore action should be taken to investigate. I suppose if a man driving a "kidnapper" safari repairvan was stopped and a cop noticed a my little pony bag stowed in the back during an "amber alert" we'd like to think that the cop would do due dilligence. ie: investigate.

Investigate is ok. Seize without cause or proof and without charge is plain wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT Actually, it was the Mike Harris gov't who passed the "Ontario�s Civil Remedies Act" in 2001. but I guess you're off the hook by saying "mostly"

Oh i must say that this is one issue where conservatives and i sometimes do not get along. But whereas conservative policy tends to be broad based. Left wing ideologues tend to have a knack for fine tuning and being specific when it comes to controlling people.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie I totally get ya... But consider this... If a guy is hiding in the woods behind a schoolyard, seen observing school children from behind trees. He's carrying a napsack. He's found by a teacher who calls the police. Police arrive and aprehend him. His knapsack is searched, and young children in provacative pictures were found, along with plasting fastenner ties, duct tape and rope. How much really is being close to obvious? There are too many real sickos out there that get off on technicalities. Guilt may not be proven in court, but intent can be obvious sometimes.

If he was trespassing he should have been told to leave. If he refused that is grounds to press charges. Otherwise i dont think there should be a case here as disgusting as this is.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.