|
Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conviction (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| 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 |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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.) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| 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. |
|
|
| elFreak |
| 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. |
|
|
| chinamon |
| 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. |
|
|
| Elendil |
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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| 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" ;) |
|
|
|
|
