Suspected Grow Op

[sexualbanana]

Is it common for Police to show up to a person's house and ask to take a look around the house for signs of a grow op based on a complaint?

More importantly, if the occupant says no, is that enough probable cause for the Police to be allowed to search the house?

For the record, no it's not about me but my neighbor whom Police just asked me about. And I'm concerned that it seems a little invasive on the Police Department's part.

[Kloubek]

They can ask anything they want. The owner of the house could say no, and they cannot enter without a warrant.

Now... if they could obtain a warrant based on the complaint, I'm not sure...

[narou]

If you have nothing to hide let em in. The officers requesting to search your home probably don't give a flying fuck about anything they will see in there, other than what they are looking for.

[black13]

I'd tell'm to come back with a warrant. Even if you have nothing to hide, you never volunteer for the police to just invade your privacy.

There was a good video posted a while ago that explained how the police system works and how usually if your not a victim of a crime, the police system works against you. I'll try to find the video.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by narou
If you have nothing to hide let em in. The officers requesting to search your home probably don't give a flying fuck about anything they will see in there, other than what they are looking for.

My concern is more about privacy, in this case my neighbor's privacy. I know the more I say it's not me you'll naturally assume it is me, but it isn't.

But if it were me, I won't have anything to hide but at the same time I wouldn't feel inclined to allow a search or walkthrough of my house without sufficient reasoning. I sure as hell wasn't the one who called it in, nor do I think it was their neighbor on the other side because he's known me for a long time and as a result has known of my neighbors for just as long.

[Boat]

Do you live in Dalhousie?

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by narou
If you have nothing to hide let em in. The officers requesting to search your home probably don't give a flying fuck about anything they will see in there, other than what they are looking for.

Attitudes like this is why we will all wake up one day in the future with GPS tracking devices implanted in your arm, and cameras following your every move 24/7.

I wouldn't let the cops inside unless they had a warrant regardless of if I had something to hide or not.

[dj_rice]

Your worried about them busting your hookup arent you?:rofl:



And if it is indeed a grow op, maybe its another jealous grow-op grower trying to get rid of his competition?

[spikerS]

no, they can't enter the house without a warrant, unless they believe someone inside is in immediate danger, and to wait for a warrant would be risking their life.

If you say no you can't come in, i have been told by police officers that that is usually enough to get the warrant, and when they get it, they say they are not too careful in how they search.

personally, I would rather be co-operative rather than pissing someone off.

[TimeAttack]

This may be true or not....

What I've heard is for instance, at an apartment suite, if the cop knocks on the door and the tenant opens the door, the officer then can intrude into the suite and look around and if they find anything that could be considered illegal they can continue the search and will not be forced to leave.

If they barge in and don't immediately see something incriminating I think you can force them to leave.

Even if another tenant knocks on the door with the police standing beside the door they can barge in.

What does this mean?
Don't open your door for strangers, especially police.

[dj_rice]

Originally posted by TimeAttack
This may be true or not....

What I've heard is for instance, at an apartment suite, if the cop knocks on the door and the tenant opens the door, the officer then can intrude into the suite and look around and if they find anything that could be considered illegal they can continue the search and will not be forced to leave.

If they barge in and don't immediately see something incriminating I think you can force them to leave.

Even if another tenant knocks on the door with the police standing beside the door they can barge in.

What does this mean?
Don't open your door for strangers, especially police.


Its not true I don't think, but even if it were true, anything illegal they found in your apartment suite would be tossed out in court since they found it WITHOUT a warrant.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by sexualbanana

For the record, no it's not about me but my neighbor whom Police just asked me about. And I'm concerned that it seems a little invasive on the Police Department's part.

Here's where this goes. You blather on about their neighbor, and in the course of it, they pick up on some small detail, which becomes magnified into "neighbor suspicion", which becomes magnified into probably cause, which becomes magnified into an unwarranted seach.

Their angle is very transparent, and makes me very disappointed in our police department.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by black13
I'd tell'm to come back with a warrant. Even if you have nothing to hide, you never volunteer for the police to just invade your privacy.

There was a good video posted a while ago that explained how the police system works and how usually if your not a victim of a crime, the police system works against you. I'll try to find the video.

:clap:

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by narou
If you have nothing to hide let em in. The officers requesting to search your home probably don't give a flying fuck about anything they will see in there, other than what they are looking for.

Police are like vampires - Once you invite them in, it's open season.

All of the sudden, that plastic milk crate that you bough at a garage sale to use to organize your music in your living room becomes a stolen property offence..... "...But we are prepared to overlook it if you don't mind talking about your neighbor".

Why hand them the leverage?

[Trites]

Long story short. Someone made a complaint about a possible grow op. There are tell tale signs of grow operations. By coming to speak to other people around said residence they can figure out if there is enough information to call it BS or to continue with the investigation.

Also, if they knocked on the door of the residence that was complained about, and the occupant tells them to beat it, they can usually seek a type of warrant which allows them access to the property but not the residence. With that they can determine if the complaint is legit or not. If it is legit they'll seek a search warrant, if not they'll conclude their file. However they probably would never knock on the door of the suspect house.

IMO, not an invasion of privacy to investigate possible grow operations. Its what the police are paid to do. The officers that do it know exactly the steps that need to be taken, and they don't enter any residence unless they have the grounds to do it and all their ducks in a row. Because if they do, all they're work will be tossed out in court.

[Trites]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


Police are like vampires - Once you invite them in, it's open season.

All of the sudden, that plastic milk crate that you bough at a garage sale to use to organize your music in your living room becomes a stolen property offence..... "...But we are prepared to overlook it if you don't mind talking about your neighbor".

Why hand them the leverage?

wearing your tinfoil hat again? If you can find me an example of a police officer who gave a damn about something so minor as a milk crate I will never doubt anything you say again.

Give your head a shake

[ZenOps]

They usually look for signs like moisture on the windows.

But you try explaining to the police that is just an 8 hour bump and grind session :poosie:

[4lti]

Someone snitched on the neighbor lol.
IMO, I would say I got no idea about my neighbor.
And as for searching your house id say no.
Unless your getting hassled by the police id rather not have them snooping around my house. (Plus what if your neighbor sees them coming to your door and starts thinking "Is this guy helping the police out..?")

Less problems to just say you didnt see anything hahahaha.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by Trites


wearing your tinfoil hat again? If you can find me an example of a police officer who gave a damn about something so minor as a milk crate I will never doubt anything you say again.



It's not about a milk crate - It's about gaining leverage to ensure your cooperation.

Even law-abiding citizens inadvertently present openings.

Why give them the opening.


Originally posted by Trites
Give your head a shake

You're dumb.

[sr20s14zenki]

Cant they tell by increased power consumption in the area? Or maybe heat imaging on the house? Why do they need to physically come in? Used to be AFAIK they would just do one of the above and that would be reason enough to search your house. Ive heard that some guys have bypassed their meters and tapped right into the grid, haha, crazy bastards.

[fooddude]

legless is exactly right with his comments. the milk crate example is extreme though :D

[5hift]

Originally posted by black13
I'd tell'm to come back with a warrant. Even if you have nothing to hide, you never volunteer for the police to just invade your privacy.

There was a good video posted a while ago that explained how the police system works and how usually if your not a victim of a crime, the police system works against you. I'll try to find the video.

:werd: :werd:



Originally posted by dj_rice
Your worried about them busting your hookup arent you?:rofl:

And if it is indeed a grow op, maybe its another jealous grow-op grower trying to get rid of his competition?

You don't get weed direct from a grow house. Its way too wet and goes to a stash house to get washed of fert and dried out.

Also if a rival finds out about a grow up, they dont rat out to the police, they do a drug rip


Originally posted by sr20s14zenki
Cant they tell by increased power consumption in the area? Or maybe heat imaging on the house? Why do they need to physically come in? Used to be AFAIK they would just do one of the above and that would be reason enough to search your house. Ive heard that some guys have bypassed their meters and tapped right into the grid, haha, crazy bastards.

Like you`ve heard, usually most grow ops have hired pro electricians to bypass and tap into main lines where the consumption doesn't get charged to that house.

I also dont think regular CPS have access to heat imaging when following up on a complaint of a possible grow op.




To the OP: if the guy actually lives in the house, and does house stuff like yard work, taking out regular garbage, driving around with the same car, is always there etc ... he`s not running any sizable grow op.

[Rat Fink]

.

[5hift]

Originally posted by Rat Fink
Why even build a grow op in the city?

Why not bury mobile homes underground on an acreage? Use that for the grow-op. have a secret passageway (maybe a trap door under a barn) to get to the mobile homes. Use diesel generators for the power. (You could even bury the generators underground as long as you make ventilation provisions so they can breath). Any fertilizer purchases, etc. could be under the guise of the farm itself. Never figured out why people butcher houses right in the city for this kind of shit. You could literally set the whole thing up so it is completely underground. Am I crazy or does that not seem like a better thing to do than have something right in the city?

the problem is that what you described would cost a huge investment in terms of having a mortgage on the property, not to mention the time and effort to build that.

grow ops get discovered too often by police and rivals. It makes more sense profit wise to have 10 crappy setups in the city and be willing to lose 3-4 of them, then have one huge one somewhere.

With the exception of a few warehouse style grow ops, the grow op never lasts long enough that its worth the time and money to build something like that.

Plus why pay for generators and diesel when you can just steal power.

[ianmcc]

Originally posted by sr20s14zenki
Cant they tell by increased power consumption in the area? Or maybe heat imaging on the house?

I've heard of police helicopters using the FLIR infra red cameras to look for "hot" houses as they fly overhead.

[TimeAttack]

Originally posted by dj_rice



Its not true I don't think, but even if it were true, anything illegal they found in your apartment suite would be tossed out in court since they found it WITHOUT a warrant.

I got this information from a reliable source.
You are kidding yourself if you think the police follow the book all the time.

If they barge in your house what are you going to do? print out the bill of rights and show them where it says invasion of privacy?
LOL

Usually they know if the people have enough money to fight it with a decent lawyer.

The cops can just say they smelled dope from the hall and that will give them probable reason to enter the residence.

You are fooling yourself if you don't think police know every loophole and how to push the rules and how to get away with bending the rules.
Totally kidding yourself.

What I was saying in my first post is if the resident opens the door that is considered approved entry to police.
VERY hard to win in court when you have to admit you opened the door. The cop just says that the resident opened the door and allowed them entry.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by 5hift

To the OP: if the guy actually lives in the house, and does house stuff like yard work, taking out regular garbage, driving around with the same car, is always there etc ... he`s not running any sizable grow op.

She's a frail old woman who's husband died last year.


Originally posted by TimeAttack


What I was saying in my first post is if the resident opens the door that is considered approved entry to police.
VERY hard to win in court when you have to admit you opened the door. The cop just says that the resident opened the door and allowed them entry.

IMO, there's a difference between answering the door and allowing entry. Are you saying that I allow entry to every single salesperson, boy scout, girl guide, Jehovah's Witness just by opening the door?

[TomcoPDR]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


I allow entry to every single boy scout, girl guide, just by opening the door?

If it were Sorath's house

[dj_rice]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


She's a frail old woman who's husband died last year.



IMO, there's a difference between answering the door and allowing entry. Are you saying that I allow entry to every single salesperson, boy scout, girl guide, Jehovah's Witness just by opening the door?


Yes that is what he is saying, keep in mind, he got this information from a reliable source so please don't kid yourself.


To the guy who thinks I'm kidding myself, yes what you said is correct about the if you open your door that is approved entry, BUT they have to identify themselves as cops/police/5-0, not hey were are shoe salesmen and barge in, yes they can search your house without a warrant IF they smell marijuana, which is under probable cause. The only other times they can bust into your house without a warrant is if they think a crime is being committed, someones life is in danger, etc.


And PS, I got this information from a reliable source, MOTHERFUCKING GOOGLE BEOTCHHHHHHHHHHHH :rofl:

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by TimeAttack

What I was saying in my first post is if the resident opens the door that is considered approved entry to police.
VERY hard to win in court when you have to admit you opened the door. The cop just says that the resident opened the door and allowed them entry.

Wow. Everything you have said is completely wrong. Your 'reliable source' must have down syndrome.

Police need probable cause to enter a property. If based on an informant's tip, the informant must be credible and corroborating evidence is needed before a warrant will be issued. You can sling all the conspiracy theories you want, but any competent lawyer will have the evidence excluded if its gathered unlawfully.

Denying police entry into a home cannot be used to prove probable cause.

Dexlargo is probably the resident expert on this issue. I'm sure he'll chime in and give his input and clear up any misconceptions.

[JC522]

Even if they come into the house without a warrant and take the grow op down, ya it'll all get tossed out in court and no charges would probably get laid but they already took the plants and equipment. That's 1 less grow op

[DJ Lazy]

Originally posted by Rat Fink
Why even build a grow op in the city?

Why not bury mobile homes underground on an acreage? Use that for the grow-op. have a secret passageway (maybe a trap door under a barn) to get to the mobile homes. Use diesel generators for the power. (You could even bury the generators underground as long as you make ventilation provisions so they can breath). Any fertilizer purchases, etc. could be under the guise of the farm itself. Never figured out why people butcher houses right in the city for this kind of shit. You could literally set the whole thing up so it is completely underground. Am I crazy or does that not seem like a better thing to do than have something right in the city?


Come up with that idea all by yourself? :rofl: Or get the idea from a marijuana documentary?

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by spikers
no, they can't enter the house without a warrant, unless they believe someone inside is in immediate danger, and to wait for a warrant would be risking their life.

If you say no you can't come in, i have been told by police officers that that is usually enough to get the warrant, and when they get it, they say they are not too careful in how they search.

personally, I would rather be co-operative rather than pissing someone off.

Funny story; Years ago a cop came to my door because a neighbour had phoned saying my son and his buddy "mooned" him. Cop asked to speak to him, and I kinda laughed and said "oh because of the alleged "mooning"?" Now....upstairs all of us adults were having a mild party. Sitting around after BBQ'd steaks and wine, etc and also quite a few joints being smoked...so the house was pretty thick. He was on the doorstep and I said "c'mon in, and you can talk to my son" Cop looked at me dumbfounded, eyes kinda big and said "oookay". Had a chat with my son , thanked me for my co operation and left. And that was the end of it.
In hindsight, I'd never let one in again...whether I DID have something to hide or I didn't. Just because the cops think they have justification for a warrant, doesn't mean a judge will agree and grant them one.

[Trites]

Originally posted by ianmcc


I've heard of police helicopters using the FLIR infra red cameras to look for "hot" houses as they fly overhead.

This is true. However it's not enough to obtain a search warrant on its own. It helps, but they need more info then that. Because it could just be my ex wife's house where she requires having the furnace running at max at all times. :D

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Rat Fink
Why even build a grow op in the city?

Why not bury mobile homes underground on an acreage? Use that for the grow-op. have a secret passageway (maybe a trap door under a barn) to get to the mobile homes. Use diesel generators for the power. (You could even bury the generators underground as long as you make ventilation provisions so they can breath). Any fertilizer purchases, etc. could be under the guise of the farm itself. Never figured out why people butcher houses right in the city for this kind of shit. You could literally set the whole thing up so it is completely underground. Am I crazy or does that not seem like a better thing to do than have something right in the city?

There was one in Chilliwack like this. Two rail cars buried underground with a giant generator as power source. It was up behind Chilliwack Lake Road (way up in the boonies). Of course it was a snitch that dimed out the owner. One car was the grow side, the other, the packaging side. It was cleaner than most labs. RCMP said it was the most sophisticated they had seen.

[01RedDX]

.

[phil98z24]

The smell of dope isn't reasonable and probable grounds (not probable cause, this isn't the United States) to conduct any search of a residence, let alone a warrantless entry. It has been made clear in case law that it isn't enough information to justify entry, but does give reasonable suspicion to investigate evidence of criminal activity.

The police are paid to ask questions, and that means if something seems wrong they are lawfully placed to ask around and see if there is evidence of illegal activity. You can open your door and answer questions if you want, but you can also tell them to pound sand. Saying no and denying entry will not EVER be used on an information to obtain a warrant; no judge in their right mind will consider that as part of grounds to issue a warrant.

Let me make this clear: Opening your door does not equate to authorizing entry. There has to be some implied authorization or direct authorization, but opening your door is not recognized as a reasonable implied invitation to come in.

If there are enough grounds to make entry into a residence right away, there are enough grounds to get a warrant. That is how the criminal code is worded, the only difference being exigent circumstances (imminent loss of evidence, loss of life, etc) determining immediate entry or waiting for a warrant.

By the way, Legless_Marine2, for someone calling someone else dumb you appear to know little to nothing about plain view doctrine or lawful placement. Your example about "leverage" is laughable, and clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


He was probably dumbfounded that you and your friends would hotbox the house with your kid inside.

You mean similar to a cigarette-smoker's house that has kids? where, daily, they're subjected to second hand smoke that yearly kills millions of people, whereas cannabis (THC) is hardly related to one death?

Yeah that could've been it.

[01RedDX]

.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
^ Smoke is smoke bro, I agree that cigarettes are way worse than pot, but filling your house up with any kind of smoke with your kids present is not cool.

Agreed. When I say "thick"...I mean you can smell it. Having a few joints in the main floor of a house once in a while, while 14 and 15 yr olds are in the basement hardly constitutes "hotboxing".
I dont smoke a dozen "Bob Marley Joints" where you cant see 10 feet in front of you.

All through my kids lives growing up, we never had them in the same room, most of the time it was out on the patio after the kids are in bed.

[01RedDX]

.

[slinkie]

Originally posted by 5hift


usually most grow ops have hired pro electricians to bypass and tap into main lines where the consumption doesn't get charged to that house.


:facepalm:

[oogaboogie]

Originally posted by 5hift

Like you`ve heard, usually most grow ops have hired pro electricians to bypass and tap into main lines where the consumption doesn't get charged to that house.

With Enmax and the CPS working together, don't they know about these tricks and how to detect the bypass?

[slinkie]

no, i'm sure they're all puzzling over why their grids use more than their bills show :rolleyes:

[TimeAttack]

gov of canada website:
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/917-e.htm





4. "Warrantless" Searches

In Collins v. The Queen, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the Crown has the burden of establishing that a warrantless search is reasonable; a search will be reasonable if it is authorized by a law that is reasonable and is carried out in a reasonable manner. Section 10 of the Narcotic Control Act authorizes police officers to search without warrant a place other than a dwelling-house, if they have reasonable grounds to believe that it contains a narcotic in respect of which an offence has been committed.

In the Kokesch case, the police conducted a "perimeter search" of the accused’s property in order to find evidence of cultivation and possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking. The Supreme Court of Canada held that, where there was a mere suspicion of the crime, such conduct amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure. The police do not have the power under the common law to trespass on private property to conduct a search.

In the Grant and Plant decisions, both released 30 September 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified a number of outstanding search and seizure issues. Like Kokesch, the two cases involved warrantless perimeter searches of private dwellings in the investigation of drug offences. In R. v. Grant, the court held that "warrantless searches pursuant to section 10 of the Narcotic Control Act must be limited to situations in which exigent circumstances render obtaining a warrant impracticable," in order to avoid violation of section 8 of the Charter. Exigent circumstances would include "imminent danger of the loss, removal, destruction or disappearance of the evidence," should the search be delayed to obtain a warrant. In the absence of evidence demonstrating those exigent circumstances, two warrantless searches conducted by the police were held to be unreasonable and in violation of section 8. Even without the information gained through the warrantless perimeter searches, however, there had been sufficient information to sustain the warrant subsequently obtained by the police to search inside the house. The court nevertheless considered excluding the evidence pursuant to section 24 (2) of the Charter, because there was a "sufficient temporal connection" between the invalid perimeter search and the evidence obtained pursuant to the valid warrant. The Court ultimately decided that the administration of justice would not be brought into disrepute by the admission of the evidence of marihuana plants found in the house. Even though the warrantless perimeter search involved a trespass by state agents where there was no urgency, the police had acted in good faith, the charges involved serious indictable offences and the admission of "real" evidence would not tend to render the trial unfair.

The Supreme Court of Canada also held that valid authorization for narcotics searches may be had under the warrant provisions of the Criminal Code, as well as under those of the Narcotic Control Act; the British Columbia Court of Appeal had held that a search warrant had been improperly obtained under section 487 of the Criminal Code since warrants for Narcotic Control Act offences could only be issued pursuant to section 12 of that Act.

In R. v. Plant, six of seven judges in the Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to computerized records of electricity consumption that would outweigh the state interest in enforcing laws against narcotics offences. Acting on an anonymous tip that marihuana was being grown in a basement, Calgary police had accessed utility records showing electricity consumption in the building to be four times the average of that in comparable properties. The Court held that the transaction records maintained as a result of the commercial relationship between the accused and the utility could not be characterized as confidential; the police were permitted computer access through a password and the information was also open to inspection by members of the public. Because the warrantless search of computer records was not unreasonable and did not fall within the parameters of section 8 of the Charter, evidence of the accused’s high electricity consumption could be used to support an application for a search warrant under the Narcotic Control Act; however, information obtained by warrantless perimeter search could not be so used. Concurring in the result, Madam Justice McLachlin argued that there was "a sufficient expectation of privacy to require the police to obtain a warrant before eliciting the information" relating to electricity consumption.

In R. v. Silveira, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the validity of police actions in another drug investigation where, following the appellant’s arrest, police had entered his home without a warrant in order to secure the premises and prevent the destruction of evidence. In the meantime, a search warrant was sought and obtained and a subsequent search of the home uncovered quantities of drugs and marked cash previously used by undercover officers when buying drugs from a third party. Writing for the majority, Mr. Justice Cory noted that the Crown had properly conceded that police action constituted a breach of the appellant’s section 8 rights. Nevertheless, he upheld the use of the resulting evidence after considering the three tests for exclusion under section 24 (2) as previously set out in R. v. Collins. First, because the evidence would have been found in any event, its admission was held not to affect the fairness of the trial. Second, although the facts revealed a serious Charter breach, the violation was committed under exigent circumstances with no evidence of bad faith on the part of the police. Finally, because of the seriousness of the crime and the need for the impugned evidence to prove the case, "[t]he admission of the evidence would not have an adverse effect upon the reputation of the administration of justice." However, the majority also emphasized that "after this case it will be rare that the existence of exigent circumstances alone will allow for the admission of evidence obtained in a clear violation of s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act and s. 8 of the Charter."

With respect to other forms of warrantless search, the Supreme Court of Canada has further held that "sniffing" for marijuana at the door of a suspect’s house constituted an unreasonable search. Thus, a warrant supported by the "evidence" thereby obtained was found to be invalid. Writing for the majority in R. v Evans, Mr. Justice Sopinka acknowledged an "implied invitation" extending to members of the public, including the police, to knock in order to communicate with the occupants of a dwelling. The police had approached with the intention of securing evidence against the occupant; thus, they were engaging in a search, which the lack of any prior authorization rendered unreasonable and in violation of section 8 of the Charter. Because, however, the police had acted in good faith, the impugned real evidence (in the form of marijuana plants) existed irrespective of the Charter violation, and the violation was not particularly grave, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the evidence was admissible since exclusion would have been more harmful to the administration of justice.

In R. v. Schrieber, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether the Canadian standard for the issuance of a search warrant had to be satisfied before the Minister of Justice could submit a letter asking Swiss authorities to search for and seize documents relating to the respondent’s bank accounts in Switzerland. In the result, five of seven justices agreed that the letter of request did not engage section 8 of the Charter. Writing for the majority, Madam L’Heureux-Dubé further held that "[n]either the actions of the Swiss authorities, nor the laws which authorized their actions, are subject to Charter scrutiny." She did concede, however, that, in the context of a criminal trial in Canada, section 7 might be applied "to justify excluding evidence obtained abroad through foreign officials where it is necessary to preserve the fairness of the trial."

In R. v. Feeney, the Supreme Court of Canada had occasion to consider the post-Charter law of arrest following forced entry into a dwelling house, with or without a warrant. The common law had previously allowed police to enter a dwelling house without a warrant, in order to effect an arrest, provided certain specific criteria were met. However, a five-to-four majority in the Feeney case decided that, post-Charter, "generally a warrant is required to make an arrest in a dwelling house," except in cases of "hot pursuit." The Supreme Court went on to say that an ordinary arrest warrant would be insufficient because it contains no express power of trespass. Privacy rights protected by the Charter "demand that the police, in general, obtain prior judicial authorization of entry into the dwelling house in order to arrest the person." Furthermore, if the Criminal Code "currently fails to provide specifically for a warrant containing such prior authorization, such a provision should be read in." Because of the failure to obtain a warrant, in combination with other Charter violations, the Supreme Court of Canada excluded much of the evidence obtained as a result of a forced entry into the accused’s dwelling house and ordered a new trial.

In response to the decision in the Feeney case, the Crown sought and obtained a six-month stay of the operation of that aspect of the judgment "relating to the requirement for a warrant to effect an arrest in a dwelling." The transition period, which would have no application to the Feeney case, was scheduled to expire 22 November 1997.

On 30 October 1997, Criminal Code amendments in the form of Bill C-16 were introduced and given first reading. The amendment provided a mechanism for peace officers to obtain prior judicial authorization to enter a dwelling house for the purposes of making an arrest.



Do you still think the police have no way around the rules, and no way of bending the rules to suit their needs?
Do you still think your piece of paper, black and white, charter of rights will protect you in the case of an "unlawful" search?

[ZenOps]

Ohhhh, this is why they need the 14.5 billion $ upgrade to the local power grid.

Moar grow Ops!

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by phil98z24

you appear to know little to nothing about plain view doctrine or lawful placement. Your example about "leverage" is laughable, and clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't need to know anything about "Plain view doctrine or lawful placement" - I look to my own experiences to define the manner in which police do their business.

Your own assurances are laughable. The legal guidelines may be relevant and interesting, but in the real world, things play out differently than in the criminology classroom.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


I don't need to know anything about "Plain view doctrine or lawful placement" - I look to my own experiences to define the manner in which police do their business.

Your own assurances are laughable. The legal guidelines may be relevant and interesting, but in the real world, things play out differently than in the criminology classroom.

Yes you do need to know about those things, because what you are talking about is called coercion, and entire cases are thrown out because of it. These cases go to court and a trial is run on them, using these laws and guidelines - that IS real world.

You talk about experiences and real world; your blather in the other thread talking about transit cops gives a pretty good glimpse of how off the page you really are when it comes to "the real world." You are right about these being legal guidelines; they are not set in stone, and the Charter is not absolute. It is constantly interpreted and reinterpreted, and that allows both the police and the bad guys to conduct business in a way that you may not agree with but is not considered unlawful.

P.S. Making up terms like "neighbor suspicion" and "probably cause" won't earn you any credibility.

[Mitsu_Paul]

WHat area do u live in?????

[TKRIS]

Phil: It is clear that Alex Jones here knows more about how police conduct themselves than you do.
Who do you think you are to contradict him about such matters? You clearly lack his wealth of experience...

You are aware that he has watched at least 3 youtube videos on the subject right?

How dare you, sir.
How dare you.

[Mitsu_Paul]

same thing happened to me . wat area????

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by TimeAttack
gov of canada website:
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/917-e.htm

4. "Warrantless" Searches

[Discussion of caselaw removed]I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that huge block of text. From the bolding, I think you are saying that because the courts will sometimes admit evidence even though they find that it was obtained through a charter breach that this means that police can do whatever they feel like and your charter rights don't mean anything.

What you might be missing is that police conduct is a major consideration in making this decision. If the police are acting in good faith and accidentally breach someone's rights when obtaining some reliable evidence, the courts will consider that in determining if they will allow the evidence in despite the breach.

The Silveira case in your copy pasta is a good example of this. The police had conducted a series of drug buys from Silveira. Following giving him cash, Silveira went to his home nearby and returned with the drugs. After the last of these buys, the police arrested him. They believed that they had grounds for a warrant to search the home, but were concerned because of the public nature of the arrest that the other occupants of the house might remove or destroy evidence before one could be obtained. So, without a warrant, they knocked on the door and entered. They determined who and where all the occupants of the home were and then held off on searching the home further until the warrant was obtained. The Supreme Court found that this warrantless entry was a charter breach, but allowed the subsequently found drugs and marked money into evidence because the police were acting in good faith and had reasonable fears about the destruction of evidence.

This doesn't grant unlimited license to the police to ignore the Charter. The Feeney case in your chunk of text amply demonstrates this. The police entered the home of Feeney, who they had good reason to believe had recently been involved in a murder. They did not have a warrant. On entry, they found Feeney asleep, and all kinds of bloody clothes and other extremely incriminating evidence. The supreme court did not allow this evidence in, despite its reliability, because the police could not adequately explain why they needed to enter the trailer without first obtaining a search warrant.

Finally, I'll just say that the tests for determining whether evidence obtained through a charter breach should be excluded from a trial is no longer what is contained in your text. Three cases from the Supreme court came out this summer that rewrote it: Grant, Suberu and Harrison(? - not sure if I'm remembering the name of the last one correctly.) But the test still incorporates analysis of whether the police were acting in good faith, how serious the breach was (i.e. did they beat him to obtain a confession?), etc. Not all that different in the factors considered, but the cases in your document are no longer relevant. The most important thing to be aware of with these changes is that the Collins test has been overruled and is no longer the law in Canada.

The practical difference with the new test, is that the Supreme Court said that certain minor, technical breaches should no longer prevent relevant, reliable evidence being admitted. This has a big impact on impaired driving cases. Now it's harder to have the results of the breath tests excluded just because the officer forgot to read charter rights immediately to the driver and for a whole five minutes the driver didn't know that he could call a lawyer.

[creeper]

Originally posted by spikers
no, they can't enter the house without a warrant, unless they believe someone inside is in immediate danger, and to wait for a warrant would be risking their life.

If you say no you can't come in, i have been told by police officers that that is usually enough to get the warrant, and when they get it, they say they are not too careful in how they search.

personally, I would rather be co-operative rather than pissing someone off.

If they had grounds for a search, they'd show up with a warrant in the first place.

And also .... we are in a dangerous time if you are afraid of "pissing off" the police. The CPS is not the KGB.

[TimeAttack]

Originally posted by dexlargo
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that huge block of text. From the bolding, I think you are saying that because the courts will sometimes admit evidence even though they find that it was obtained through a charter breach that this means that police can do whatever they feel like and your charter rights don't mean anything.

What you might be missing is that police conduct is a major consideration in making this decision. If the police are acting in good faith and accidentally breach someone's rights when obtaining some reliable evidence, the courts will consider that in determining if they will allow the evidence in despite the breach.

The Silveira case in your copy pasta is a good example of this. The police had conducted a series of drug buys from Silveira. Following giving him cash, Silveira went to his home nearby and returned with the drugs. After the last of these buys, the police arrested him. They believed that they had grounds for a warrant to search the home, but were concerned because of the public nature of the arrest that the other occupants of the house might remove or destroy evidence before one could be obtained. So, without a warrant, they knocked on the door and entered. They determined who and where all the occupants of the home were and then held off on searching the home further until the warrant was obtained. The Supreme Court found that this warrantless entry was a charter breach, but allowed the subsequently found drugs and marked money into evidence because the police were acting in good faith and had reasonable fears about the destruction of evidence.

This doesn't grant unlimited license to the police to ignore the Charter. The Feeney case in your chunk of text amply demonstrates this. The police entered the home of Feeney, who they had good reason to believe had recently been involved in a murder. They did not have a warrant. On entry, they found Feeney asleep, and all kinds of bloody clothes and other extremely incriminating evidence. The supreme court did not allow this evidence in, despite its reliability, because the police could not adequately explain why they needed to enter the trailer without first obtaining a search warrant.

Finally, I'll just say that the tests for determining whether evidence obtained through a charter breach should be excluded from a trial is no longer what is contained in your text. Three cases from the Supreme court came out this summer that rewrote it: Grant, Suberu and Harrison(? - not sure if I'm remembering the name of the last one correctly.) But the test still incorporates analysis of whether the police were acting in good faith, how serious the breach was (i.e. did they beat him to obtain a confession?), etc. Not all that different in the factors considered, but the cases in your document are no longer relevant. The most important thing to be aware of with these changes is that the Collins test has been overruled and is no longer the law in Canada.

The practical difference with the new test, is that the Supreme Court said that certain minor, technical breaches should no longer prevent relevant, reliable evidence being admitted. This has a big impact on impaired driving cases. Now it's harder to have the results of the breath tests excluded just because the officer forgot to read charter rights immediately to the driver and for a whole five minutes the driver didn't know that he could call a lawyer.

I was just trying to show that it's not as black & white as some people seem to think it is, whether it supports my position or yours or both, doesn't really concern me.

Also shows situations where the person with right being breached didn't have the option to run to the printer and hold up the charter in front of the police to prevent any unlawful entry.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by TimeAttack


I was just trying to show that it's not as black & white as some people seem to think it is, whether it supports my position or yours or both, doesn't really concern me.

Also shows situations where the person with right being breached didn't have the option to run to the printer and hold up the charter in front of the police to prevent any unlawful entry.

I will agree with you on both points. The first is "real world" (Legless_Marine2, you should write this stuff down), and shows how it works for both sides.

As far as the second one goes, your first point illustrates how hazy the Charter really is. So hazy that the police sometimes don't know they have committed a Charter breach, as they are acting in what they believe is a lawful manner. It is extremely complicated stuff, and it makes my head spin everytime we see new memos and policy changes because of it.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by phil98z24
As far as the second one goes, your first point illustrates how hazy the Charter really is. So hazy that the police sometimes don't know they have committed a Charter breach, as they are acting in what they believe is a lawful manner. Agreed. How could the police know if they have breached the charter? The police only get to find out 3-5 years later when the Supreme Court finishes dissecting every detail and then decides if they acted properly or not.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by dexlargo
Agreed. How could the police know if they have breached the charter? The police only get to find out 3-5 years later when the Supreme Court finishes dissecting every detail and then decides if they acted properly or not.

Wow - This discussion has gone from "The police study to law to ensure they don't break it", to "The Police aren't quite sure when they've breached the law because it's so darned complicated".

That uncertainty alone is sufficient to warrant caution when dealing with the police.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by Mitsu_Paul
WHat area do u live in?????



Originally posted by Mitsu_Paul
same thing happened to me . wat area????


Don't worry, it's not Killarny.

[Mitsu_Paul]

lol no its funny when i lived by grey eagle last year in those condos same thing happend