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 »

Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conviction

Again, for those who think we arent headed toward fascism, have a read. This scares the hell out of me. Combined with the new drunk driving laws, hate speech laws, and 50 over/"street racing" law we are really losing our right to jurisprudence and a fair hearing.

This topic of liberty and justice really should be the #1 issue in any upcoming elections to be honest.

And before anyone gets all snobby about it being in the Sun, Eddie Greenspan is one of the most sought after and respected lawyers in Canada.

quote:

Proof goes poof Police can seize cash, property without charges or convictions By EDWARD GREENSPAN When Robin Chatterjee was pulled over for having a missing licence plate, police claimed they smelled marijuana in his car. They searched the car and found $29,000 in cash and a few items commonly used for growing marijuana. The police recognized they did not have evidence to charge him with any crime. Instead, they confiscated the items, along with the $29,000. Shockingly, this happened in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled such forfeitures do not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the police just "think" property in your possession may have come from criminal activity, it can be legally confiscated. Ontario's Civil Remedies Act "does not require an allegation or proof that a particular person committed a particular crime," the court wrote. This is an extraordinary grant of police power and the potential for abuse or misuse is extreme. Many readers have no problem with the notion of police powers being exercised against criminals. But Chatterjee was never even charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. This did not matter to the court, which wrote the trial judge "could have accepted wholeheartedly (Chatterjee's) claim that he was entirely innocent of any involvement with marijuana cultivation, yet still ordered forfeiture." That is a remarkable statement. What happened to proof beyond a reasonable doubt? What ever happened to the principle that "the punishment must fit the crime?" Chatterjee may have been a suspicious character. After all, it is rather unusual to travel with tools typically used for growing marijuana plus $29,000 in cash. But it is not illegal. Receipt, please Imagine the police pull your car over for a broken tail light or come to your house because you are waking your neighbours. Will you need to provide a receipt to justify any unusual or expensive possessions the police notice that you have? And if you can't, should you lose your things, even with no criminal conviction? I think it violates the principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to confiscate alleged proceeds of crime without any criminal charge. In a free and democratic society, we should not have to explain ourselves to the police any time we are pulled over. In my view, if the police do not have grounds to arrest you, you should be free to go, and to take your property without having to prove it is lawfully yours. The unfortunate trend, however, is our society's interest in personal privacy continues to degrade, coming close to the point of no return. Since 2004, six other provinces have joined Ontario by enacting civil forfeiture laws. B.C., has confiscated more than $5 million since its law came into effect in 2006. B.C.'s Civil Forfeiture Office (BCCFO) is funded by proceeds of confiscated goods, and the office became entirely self-funded 18 months ahead of schedule. This should be nothing to be proud of, but the BCCFO gleefully boasts it is "an exercise in efficiency" and it's "business model" is premised on "ease of access for law enforcement personnel." It scares the hell out of me that a government forfeiture office sees itself as a business. Confiscating goods and money without sufficient proof of criminal conduct should not be undertaken so cavalierly. U.S.-style abuses Such programs are likely, if not certain, to suffer from the exact same sorts of abuses that have occurred in the U.S., where it is not uncommon to hear of forfeited goods going missing or forfeited cars winding up in the hands of law enforcement personnel. The state took Chatterjee's money and other items because the cops smelled marijuana in his car. I am left to wonder what they would have confiscated had Chatterjee actually had drugs on him. Maybe his kidney?

Now this is complete bullshit!

I know a guy who smokes weed all the time and carries tens of thousands on him all the time as he is filthy rich. He is a legit business man who probably would be found with a bong in his car if ever searched. I guess in this country he is automatically guilty of whatever the cops want to believe?

Sad sad sad

so are we going towards fascism or communism?

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Z so are we going towards fascism or communism?

Ask the left wing leaders. They seem to know best!

Either way it scares me.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 carries tens of thousands on him all the time as he is filthy rich.

I assume you are exagerating... why would anyone carry around that much cash? Unless you are some douche who just likes to be seen with tons of cash like you are filming a rap video or something.

quote:

Originally posted by Man_Devil I assume you are exagerating... why would anyone carry around that much cash? Unless you are some douche who just likes to be seen with tons of cash like you are filming a rap video or something.

Im not exaggerating and hes not some douche. In fact hes anything but flashy. Where he comes from credit cards arent the norm and its what he is used to. But i guess assumptions about people is exactly what scares me when the police are allowed to do this with the clout of authority and without reprisal.

To some people 10K isnt a lot of money. To some people $100 IS a lot of money. Its all about perspective i guess.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Where he comes from credit cards arent the norm and its what he is used to. To some people 10K isnt a lot of money. To some people $100 IS a lot of money. Its all about perspective i guess.

I guess... but carrying around a big bag of cash is kinda ridiculous. Its like back in the day when you had to drag around some goat to go trade someone for their chickens; more of a hassle than anything.

The only real reason to pay with cash is to avoid a paper trail...

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 carries tens of thousands on him all the time

Your buddy sounds like a goddamned idiot. Do you know lots of idiots?

quote:

Originally posted by Man_Devil I guess... but carrying around a big bag of cash is kinda ridiculous. Its like back in the day when you had to drag around some goat to go trade someone for their chickens; more of a hassle than anything. The only real reason to pay with cash is to avoid a paper trail...

A lot of things people do from other countries seems ridiculous.

I remember when living in argentina i would pay for things with credit (when i could) to get the points. People looked at me like i was crazy. In argentina only POOR people tend to use credit cards and it is a sign of poverty except when buying an airline ticket or something like that where its a necessity. They couldnt understand why a gringo would be using a credit card. Even deposits on car rentals are done mostly in cash. Also credit card purchases were charged an extra 10%. I am assuming the same is the case where my friend comes from which is why i would understand his routine of carrying a lot of cash.

Its all about perspective when it comes to what is a lot of money

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Your buddy sounds like a goddamned idiot. Do you know lots of idiots?

If being a self made man is being an idiot im all for being an idiot!

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Your buddy sounds like a goddamned idiot. Do you know lots of idiots?

just because someone can afford to carry lots of cash on them does not make them an idiot.
just because that same person does something that you do not agree with does not make them an idiot.

He can still sound like an idiot. And he sounds like an idiot to me.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie He can still sound like an idiot. And he sounds like an idiot to me.

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

The 3rd world jennypie must think that anyone who carries more than $20 is an idiot LOL

Both sides of the Drug War have eroded civil rights in most of the Western Hemisphere for some time now.

'Bout time we caught up.

is ti wrong when they do this at airports?

because they have been doing it for years.

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak is ti wrong when they do this at airports? because they have been doing it for years.

from my understanding, customs and border officials have a lot more authority than the police do.

legalize it, tax it, destigmatize it.

And i dont even consume drugs other than alcohol.

We are losing rights in all forms not just because of drugs. Try safety, the environment or any other cause de jour. There is always an excuse.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon from my understanding, customs and border officials have a lot more authority than the police do.

i am for the border seizures, as i am for this too (and i smoke).

prevention > fixing an already existing problem.

i am sure the person who's property is seized has a legal recourse to get it back proven that he/she can provide a legitimate explanation.

i might be a hassle, but in reality this might stop crimes...same with border officers, who would have confiscated that cash too.

i much as i love weed, its proceeds are sometimes used to fund other illegal activities that may not be so harmless.

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak is ti wrong when they do this at airports? because they have been doing it for years.

Yes and no IMO.

Regardless of the law (as i dont know how it applies to border agents off hand) i feel that border agents should have to right to seize what they consider to be dangerous goods or illegally obtained goods. HOWEVER.... There should be a court process whereby you can get those items back. The onus should be on the state to prove you are guilty, not the person to prove they are innocent.

As for meat and cheese and drugs etc where the rules are clearly stated, they have every right to seize these items and charge you.

quote:

Originally posted by elFreak i am for the border seizures, as i am for this too (and i smoke). prevention > fixing an already existing problem. i am sure the person who's property is seized has a legal recourse to get it back proven that he can provide a legitimate explanation. i might be a hassle, but in reality this might stop crimes...same with border officers, who would have confiscated that cash too.

In this article it states that items seized by the police cannot be recovered. And IMO policing and border protecting are two COMPLETELY different realms.

Both should have proper jurisprudence and procedure and should protect the rights of the innocent.

smells like the patriot act to me.... cannuck-style

quote:

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

When it comes to policy this is a very dangerous position. It allows the state to assume that everyone will commit an offense before it happens thereby creating an environment where everyone is treated like a suspect.

Look at our alcohol laws for a good example of this. And this mode of thinking has encroached in almost every facet of life in the past 30 years.

I am from the school of thought that education, providing options, personal responsibility and rigid enforcement are the way to go. Of course proper jurisprudence and the right to be innocent until proven guilty is always a must in ALL situations. What we dont need are restrictive laws designed for every single "what if?" scenario and police powers that bypass the courts and any right to defend one's self.

quote:

Originally posted by thesauce23 smells like the patriot act to me.... cannuck-style

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

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