Traffic Stop Story

[broken_legs]

Hypothetically:

- A motorist was pulled over for speeding.
- Officer tells motorist he was doing 128 in 70 zone. 100 turned into a 70 in the park... (58km/over an arrestable offense??)
- Officer starts asking if he does a search if he'll find anything. Motorist responds no there nothing in here, but why would you search? Don't you need a reason to search? (is this why all of this happened?)
- Officer continues asking questions etc... Seems extremely suspicious for unknown reasons. Wants places, names, dates etc... I guess only crims expect to have privacy??

- There is a Bob Marley CD on the passenger seat.
- Car is a brand new rental car, there is nothing but the CD and some red bull cans & A&W garbage in front/back seats.

What happens next?

* Can the officer arrest the motorist?
* Can the officer detain the motorist at this point?
* Can the officer randomly accuse motorist of narcotics offenses then detain them without explaining what the reasons are for the narcotics accusation?

Continuing...

- Asks motorist to step out and explains he is being detained for "narcotics offenses"
- Motorist explains he does not submit to a search
- Officer says it doesn't matter and he has "lots of reasons" for the detention but won't explain why
- pat down for weapons, placed in back of cruiser

- Motorist is detained until drug sniffing dog arrives
- Motorist is relieved because he doesn't do drugs, doesn't hang out with anyone who does drugs, and this is a brand new rental car with 65km on it, how could it possibly test positive??? Motorist should be on his way in 5 minutes....

- Drug sniffing dog is shown a green (for pot???) rag to calibrate his nose, then sniffs around the car (Why only the green rag? )
- To Motorists Utter Horror & Surprise, supposedly the dog smells something but dog never sat down or barked or begged or anything to indicate a find (Do any of these searches for a reason to search ever turn up negative???) Only indication was trainer nodded head then threw the green rag down on the ground.

- Motorist is then read Miranda rights and cuffed and arrested.
- Motorist asks to be provided a lawyer, cop says when "we get back"??? Back Where??? Wtf??
- Motorist half in shock half shitting his pants. Is motorist about to get framed???? How is he getting to work tomorrow? WTF is going on????

- Search of vehicle begins. Front Seat, Back Seat. Nothing found.

- Trunk opened, dog brought back
- Supposedly dog indicates drugs in trunk
- Suitcase and computer bag are searched, dog was never used to sniff contents of bags? Or Motorist?

- Cops find nothing.

- Motorist asks if he is still under arrest
- Officer indicates no, then performs a search of motorist
- Obviously nothing is found

- Motorist is released after just over an hour of detention/arrest for no apparent reason, and given a hefty fine

Hypothetically, wtf just happened?

Hypothetically, does the motorist have a criminal record now/????

Is there some information under the motorists name that caused the search for drugs??

[Kg810]

:facepalm:

[st184]

Big brother is watching you.

[Grogador]

Originally posted by broken_legs
Hypothetically:

* Can the officer arrest the motorist?
* Can the officer detain the motorist at this point?
* Can the officer randomly accuse motorist of narcotics offenses then detain them without explaining what the reasons are for the narcotics accusation?

Hypothetically, wtf just happened?

Hypothetically, does the motorist have a criminal record now/????

Is there some information under the motorists name that caused the search for drugs??

Yes
Yes
Yes

You got bent over by the short stubby dick of the law.

Ha, no.

Potentially some 'known associates' or matching description or maybe the cop just snagged a sketchy-lookin' mouthy kid with a Bob CD in the front seat?

[barmanjay]

"Pingu! Pingu!"

Wtf moment!

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by broken_legs
- Officer tells motorist he was doing 128 in 70 zone. 100 turned into a 70 in the park... (58km/over an arrestable offense??)Depends on what you mean by 'arrest'. As defined in the criminal code, yes. Because he found you committing the offence. Does that mean he can take you to arrest processing? Not normally. For this type of offence, the police usually give you the paperwork and release at scene, but in some circs (need to establish your ID, etc.), yes they can take you downtown.

- Officer starts asking if he does a search if he'll find anything. Motorist responds no there nothing in here, but why would you search? Don't you need a reason to search? (is this why all of this happened?)
- Officer continues asking questions etc... Seems extremely suspicious for unknown reasons. Wants places, names, dates etc... I guess only crims expect to have privacy??If you consent to a search, then he can search. He's allowed to ask you questions as well. Doesn't mean that you have to answer the questions.


* Can the officer arrest the motorist?
* Can the officer detain the motorist at this point?
* Can the officer randomly accuse motorist of narcotics offenses then detain them without explaining what the reasons are for the narcotics accusation?'Randomly'? No. But he doesn't have to tell you what the reasons are for detention, he just has to have reasonable grounds to detain you.


Continuing...

- Asks motorist to step out and explains he is being detained for "narcotics offenses"Was the motorist told of any rights at this point?


- Motorist explains he does not submit to a search
- Officer says it doesn't matter and he has "lots of reasons" for the detention but won't explain whyDoesn't have to explain why. Can you imagine if he did? There would be arguments at the side of the road about the sufficiency of the officer's reasons, and would lead to more aggravation and delay.

...
Hypothetically, wtf just happened?Obviously, the police had a mistaken belief that the motorist had drugs. They thought that they had gathered enough evidence to make an arrest, so they did. Then they discovered that there was no offence committed, (egg on face), and they released the motorist.

Did they exceed their authority at any point? Maybe. Your description certainly makes it appear so, but we don't have the full story. There could have been other factors at play that we're not aware of that explain why the officer was so suspicious. Or he might have jumped to a conclusion and initiated a detention without a proper basis. It's very difficult for me to tell from this end of the internet.


Hypothetically, does the motorist have a criminal record now/????No. The motorist would have to be convicted in court of a criminal offence as a result of this for a criminal record to result.

Does that mean that there is no record whatsoever? No. The police would likely have a record of the contact, but that's not releasable, and is not the same kind of thing as a criminal record at all.


Is there some information under the motorists name that caused the search for drugs?? Maybe. How can people on a message board answer that hypothetical question?

If the motorist is concerned about how this all happened, then, hypothetically, the motorist could make a query/complaint to the police and it would be investigated. The motorist would be apprised of the progress and outcome of the investigation.

Why the silly hypothetical question framing?

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by dexlargo

Why the silly hypothetical question framing? [/B]

I don't want to admit i just got arrested fuck. :banghead:

I can't sleep, this is driving me nuts. The whole thing just doesn't make any sense. I've never been treated like this before.

I'll be in contact with the detachment where this happened tomorrow to find out more.

Even when the cop finally let me go he still kept insisting that there were drugs at some point in the car or I managed to hide them. I've had 7-8 tickets in the 15 years ive been driving and this has never happened before - But then again I never questioned the cop if he could search my car...

**** He did tell me on the way out that was reports of "erratic driving" from another constable earlier that same day. Could this be why? If I was speeding earlier and people reported it would that give him reason to search my vehicle for drugs?

Do I have a right to know what information the RCMP keeps about me?

I was under the impression that RCMP or whomever can't keep dossiers on civilians unless they are under investigation for something...

[Modelexis]

You should have quoted the charter in order to reign in his power by enforcing the power of words on paper in which the country was founded on.

I see this as a good example of how the state can be controlled through reminding them what your rights are in an attempt to control their power.

Doesn't seem like it turned out very well..
Maybe if ron paul was there you would have been free to go :D

[Feruk]

Dude, unless you consented to the search, what happened to you is an unlawful search of your vehicle (trunk specifically). Did they even get a warrant or did you give them permission to open the trunk? If you gave them permission, too bad. If not, they have violated your constitutional rights against "unlawful search and seizure." Police are only allowed to search what's "clearly visible" is the terminology I believe?? Worst, because the police have a record of it, you'll get more harassment from them.

Get a lawyer and SUE their ass off! Don't even bother talking to the precinct.

[Dave P]

Originally posted by Feruk
Dude, unless you consented to the search, what happened to you is an unlawful search of your vehicle (trunk specifically). Did they even get a warrant or did you give them permission to open the trunk? If you gave them permission, too bad. If not, they have violated your constitutional rights against "unlawful search and seizure." Police are only allowed to search what's "clearly visible" is the terminology I believe?? Worst, because the police have a record of it, you'll get more harassment from them.

Get a lawyer and SUE their ass off! Don't even bother talking to the precinct.

Lay off the Law and Order hahaha.

[rage2]

lol you can't sue the cops for an unlawful search. You can throw out the evidence if they find anything.

Unlawful searches happen ALL the time, gets drugs/weapons off the street quickly. Many many years ago, the car I was in got searched illegally (a bunch of us were heading to a fight at a school). We never gave them permission to search, asked for a warrant, they said they'll get one but searched anyways. Cops sized machetes, baseball bats, a saw'd off shotgun barrel that was used in a driveby, just tons of shit. Got detained, but never got arrested, never got charged. We were just let go with all of the stuff confiscated. Not that it matters, because they prevent a fight from going down that could've ended up pretty bad.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by rage2
Many many years ago, the car I was in got searched illegally (a bunch of us were heading to a fight at a school). We never gave them permission to search, asked for a warrant, they said they'll get one but searched anyways. Cops sized machetes, baseball bats, a saw'd off shotgun barrel that was used in a driveby, just tons of shit. Got detained, but never got arrested, never got charged. We were just let go with all of the stuff confiscated. Not that it matters, because they prevent a fight from going down that could've ended up pretty bad.

You are... umm.... were yellow.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by broken_legs
Even when the cop finally let me go he still kept insisting that there were drugs at some point in the car or I managed to hide them. Probably trying to save some face. It seems as though he felt quite sure you had drugs in the car, for whatever reason, and was surprised nothing was found. They probably thought you were high as well, given the comment about erratic driving reports.

Do I have a right to know what information the RCMP keeps about me?We're really getting out of my area here, but you could make a request to see information kept about yourself. There are exceptions for law enforcement stuff - Can you imagine if people could make information requests and discover that they were currently subject to an undercover investigation? That wouldn't work too well.

I'm just not sure how far the exceptions apply.


I was under the impression that RCMP or whomever can't keep dossiers on civilians unless they are under investigation for something... Again, this is getting out of my area of knowledge, but the records I'm envisioning wouldn't so much be a dossier of what they know and suspect about you, rather just a record that they had come into contact with you. There would also be the officer's notes that he made regarding the incident in his notebook, and there might be a report prepared regarding the incident, but again, not for the purpose of tracking you, rather just records of the police's actions, like any business keeps records of transactions, or meetings, or what have you.

I'm not sure if the police keep more information than that.

Honestly though, I think you're worrying about it too much. I wouldn't worry about the police targeting you unless you have similar incidents. The only concern I'd have coming out of this is whether or not the police exceeded their authority at some point and if they did, whether they did so deliberately or not.

I don't know if they did, but just because you never got charged with anything doesn't mean that the officers shouldn't be held accountable if they did something improper.

If you feel that your rights were violated, you should first find out what your rights really are, then second, write out which actions in particular by the officers you believe violated your rights or exceeded their authority, then third, make a written complaint or query to the police agency.

I'm providing you some links for more information on complaints and access to information. You mentioned the RCMP, but I'm still not sure what police agency you dealt with, so I've included information for both CPS and the RCMP:

Complaints/Concerns

Calgary Police Commission complaint and concern procedure (http://www.calgarypolicecommission.ca/content/complaints-and-concerns)
RCMP complaint procedure (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cont/faq-comp-plainte-eng.htm)

Access to Information

CPS
In Alberta, this is governed by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Alberta) (http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-f-25/latest/rsa-2000-c-f-25.html)
See sections:
7: How to make a request; and
20: 'Disclosure harmful to law enforcement'

RCMP
The above Act doesn't apply to the RCMP because they're Federal, not provincial. The legislation that applies to them is the Privacy Act (Canada) (http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-f-25/latest/rsa-2000-c-f-25.html)
See sections:
12-13: right of access and how to request access; and
22: law enforcement and investigation.

Access to non-personal information, which might include the officer's notes about his reasons, is done under the Access to Information Act (Canada) (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-a-1/latest/rsc-1985-c-a-1.html).

A FAQ on both types of requests and how to make them for the RCMP is here (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/atip-aiprp/faq-eng.htm)

[Buffalo Soldier]

How did the dog alert that there were drugs in the car? Any cop will say oh ya the dog has alerted your car for drugs but if you pay attention the dog didnt do shit. Depending on how the dog is trained it should probably just start pawing or barking at your car. If the dog didn't do anything call the cop out on it if he insists on searching because of the dog.

[Xtrema]

That's a lot of detail for a "hypothetical" situation.

You are fine.

Be glad that you are not in the US. You ass will probably get tazed and thrown into jail.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by Feruk
Dude, unless you consented to the search, what happened to you is an unlawful search of your vehicle (trunk specifically). Did they even get a warrant or did you give them permission to open the trunk? If you gave them permission, too bad. If not, they have violated your constitutional rights against "unlawful search and seizure." Police are only allowed to search what's "clearly visible" is the terminology I believe?? Worst, because the police have a record of it, you'll get more harassment from them. There's a number of things you say that are confused. Here's the skinny on the relevant types of warrantless searches:

Consent search - if a person gives consent to be searched, then no warrant is necessary. Consent searches can be problematic for police because often issues of whether or not the consent was 'informed' in the sense that the individual was aware of their right to refuse. Not all 'uninformed' consent searches are unlawful, though. It's a complicated thing.

Plain view - At a traffic stop (and other situations) officers might see something that is evidence in itself of a crime. They may then seize that item. Seeing this item in 'plain view' is not a search and is totally fine, so long as the officer sees the item/evidence when they are in a place that they are lawfully entitled to be. So they can't enter your house without reason and then find something in 'plain view'.

Since it's not a search, no warrant is required.

Search incident to arrest - Should the police form the requisite grounds to make an arrest (i.e. more than detention, they say I am arresting you for possession of narcotics, or something), they then have every right to search you without having to obtain a warrant for weapons, means of escape (handcuff keys, etc.), and for evidence related to the arrested offence. If you're in a vehicle (or near one!), they can then search that too for evidence as well. This is done without warrant, and is lawful so long as the arrest is lawful.

The key is, there has to be a possibility of evidence related to the charged offence being found. So, while OP might have been arrested for the traffic offence, the police can't search incident to that arrest. If they see something in plain view, fine. But they can't go into the trunk, or the glove compartment without reason. If they can't ID the person (he has no ID on him, or whatever) it might be reasonable for the police to look in the glove compartment or throughout the vehicle for identifying information and if they found a pound of cocaine while looking for an envelope with a name and address, that would likely be fine, just so long as they really were looking for the allowed information and not just using that as a pretext to perform a search they would otherwise not be allowed to do.

Make sense?

One other warrantless search that's relevant:

Search incident to detention - If the officer has grounds to detain (much less than the grounds needed to arrest), they can perform a search incident to that detention of the person, but this is generally limited to a pat-down type of search to see if the person has any weapons. This is allowed for the safety of the officers. It's not an unlimited license to go through someone's pockets and see if they have drugs in there.

One last point about searches that is important, is that even if a search is later determined to have been unlawful, that doesn't necessarily mean that what was found in the search can't be used as evidence (Rage is right, exclusion of the evidence is what defence lawyers try to get). Instead, the judge has to decide whether or not (and I'm simplifying this greatly) it would be worse for the justice system if the evidence were admitted or excluded, i.e. is it fairer (both to the public and to the accused person) to consider the evidence, or to sanction the police for violating the right? This is all done under Section 24(2) of the Charter:


Enforcement
24 (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

[revelations]

Originally posted by broken_legs


I don't want to admit i just got arrested fuck. :banghead:

I can't sleep, this is driving me nuts. The whole thing just doesn't make any sense. I've never been treated like this before.

I'll be in contact with the detachment where this happened tomorrow to find out more.

Even when the cop finally let me go he still kept insisting that there were drugs at some point in the car or I managed to hide them. I've had 7-8 tickets in the 15 years ive been driving and this has never happened before - But then again I never questioned the cop if he could search my car...

**** He did tell me on the way out that was reports of "erratic driving" from another constable earlier that same day. Could this be why? If I was speeding earlier and people reported it would that give him reason to search my vehicle for drugs?

Do I have a right to know what information the RCMP keeps about me?

I was under the impression that RCMP or whomever can't keep dossiers on civilians unless they are under investigation for something...

Being arrested is not that big a deal.

People get arrested for yelling in public (disturb the peace) all the time for eg. and then released without charges laid (drunken idiots).

So you were going almost double the speed limit eh, surprised the cop wasnt more pissed.

Not sure where you got the idea that records arent kept on individuals, but they certainly are.

I queried my name once in the RCMP database and every contact that I ever had with a 911 operator, witness to an accident, report of a break in, etc. were all there.

If youre associated to or somehow connected to the underground, the national database will have this. If youre roommates to a guy who sells drugs out of his house, that can get slapped on the file (esp if the room mate tells the cops your name). - even if youve done nothing wrong.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by broken_legs

Hypothetically, wtf just happened?

Hypothetically, does the motorist have a criminal record now/????

Is there some information under the motorists name that caused the search for drugs??

We need to send more troops to Afghanistan to fight for our freedoms until this sort of thing stops.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by broken_legs

Even when the cop finally let me go he still kept insisting that there were drugs at some point in the car or I managed to hide them. I've had 7-8 tickets in the 15 years ive been driving and this has never happened before - But then again I never questioned the cop if he could search my car...


Forgive if this has already been mentioned before, but it's fairly easy for the cops to trigger a dog into "Alerting".

At the moment you started to get all legalistic on him, you ensured punitive treatment.

I applaud your attempt.... but it has consequences in an increasingly authoritarian society.

[Kloubek]

While this appears to be a shitty (and unwarranted) situation, you will not have a criminal record.

So what this comes down to is whether it was legal (or morally right) to be detained for that time. But at the end of the day, does it really make THAT much of a difference? Worthy of a complaint perhaps, but not much more than that, imo....

[Feruk]

Dexlargo, I'm a little confused then. The consent search and plain view I understand, but it doesn't sound like the OP consented and there was nothing suspicious in plain view. Here are my problems:

(1) He was detained without cause it would seem. Pat down I have no issue with, makes sense for officer's safety.
(2) He was then arrested and his trunk was opened. Nothing was found. Now you presented quite a few arguments for what happens IF they find something. However, those don't apply as they found nothing. Wouldn't that be pretty much the definition of an illegal search of his trunk?

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by LollerBrader


At the moment you started to get all legalistic on him, you ensured punitive treatment.

I applaud your attempt.... but it has consequences in an increasingly authoritarian society.

^^ Pretty much what I think happened. I didn't roll the window down (half way lots of room to talk and for him to sniff around.


I tried to do this:
eDJrQBwJpqk


But to be honest, I was not cool or collected. Couldn't remember half of the stuff in the video.

At first I thought the whole thing was kind of funny, and this was just a mistake so I wasn't too worried. Then when I got handcuffed sh*t seemed like it was flying out of control.

I always thought that I would be calm and cool in a situation like that, but I'll be honest, I was mostly in shock, kind of scared, and pretty much a big pussy once the handcuffs came out. lol :rofl:




Originally posted by Feruk
Dexlargo, I'm a little confused then. The consent search and plain view I understand, but it doesn't sound like the OP consented and there was nothing suspicious in plain view. Here are my problems:

(1) He was detained without cause it would seem. Pat down I have no issue with, makes sense for officer's safety.
(2) He was then arrested and his trunk was opened. Nothing was found. Now you presented quite a few arguments for what happens IF they find something. However, those don't apply as they found nothing. Wouldn't that be pretty much the definition of an illegal search of his trunk?


The way I understand things, he detained me for "narcotics offences" so he could get a dog. Pat down and all that was all by the book as far as I know. I even asked him before he patted me down "Are you searching me?", he explained it was just a pat down for weapons.

The dog supposedly indicated there were drugs, this gives him reason to arrest and then the right to search because I have now been arrested (illegally IMO)

It's complete bullsh*t that the dog smelled anything unless the 1/1,000,000 chance that brand new cars are used to transport pot from Japan and I just happened to be in that car. :rolleyes:

The officer told me "Listen this is just a formality, I could arrest you for speeding already" - As if to indicate he could search me anyways.

So if that's the case, why didn't he just arrest me for speeding? Then he could have found the drugs and given me a bigger fine?

OR is it the case that if he arrested me for speeding, there would be no reason to search the car? im confused.


***Side Note: Is it illegal to make voice recordings of traffic stops in Canada?

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by Feruk
Dexlargo, I'm a little confused then. The consent search and plain view I understand, but it doesn't sound like the OP consented and there was nothing suspicious in plain view. Here are my problems:

(1) He was detained without cause it would seem. Pat down I have no issue with, makes sense for officer's safety.
(2) He was then arrested and his trunk was opened. Nothing was found. Now you presented quite a few arguments for what happens IF they find something. However, those don't apply as they found nothing. Wouldn't that be pretty much the definition of an illegal search of his trunk? I wrote something really long, but maybe I should just stick to your questions:

1 - The pat down search is problematic if there aren't grounds to detain. Ultimately it's not relevant because nothing is found, but if there aren't grounds to detain, then the officer can't do a pat down search (generally - there could be oddball situations where it would be reasonable).

Whether or not he was detained without grounds, we don't know. We'd need to see the officer's notes to be aware of what he thought those grounds were. He could have received information via radio confirming that a similar vehicle and person were just involved in some related incident, and so he detained to determine if this was the right person/vehicle, or other things, or he just detained without grounds. Hard to say.

2 - You can't look at a search from the end to see if it's justified. Just because nothing is found doesn't imply that the officer acted unlawfully.

An officer is allowed to be wrong, he just has to honestly believe, on an objectively reasonable basis, that he had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest. He has to be able to articulate those reasons, and again he can have a mistaken belief that a particular fact is true, but he must be able to articulate why he believed them to be true.

Again, I'm not saying that the officers were acting properly or improperly in this circumstance, I don't think we can tell without more information.

[Supa Dexta]

And can you ask before then unleash the hound, about what behaviour its going to display if it finds something..

I guess either way they would just say you aren't a trained handler of the dog, so you don't know what you're looking for if you question it.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by broken_legs
It's complete bullsh*t that the dog smelled anything unless the 1/1,000,000 chance that brand new cars are used to transport pot from Japan and I just happened to be in that car. :rolleyes: Sometimes the dogs make mistakes. But they are pretty good generally, so a mistaken alert by the dog could ground your arrest, or maybe the car had been used by the prior renter to carry drugs, who knows?


The officer told me "Listen this is just a formality, I could arrest you for speeding already" - As if to indicate he could search me anyways.

So if that's the case, why didn't he just arrest me for speeding? Then he could have found the drugs and given me a bigger fine

OR is it the case that if he arrested me for speeding, there would be no reason to search the car? im confused.?This. They can only search incident to arrest for evidence relevant to what you are arrested for. Unless there's a possiblity of finding speeding evidence in your trunk, no search of your trunk would be lawful on an arrest for speeding.


***Side Note: Is it illegal to make voice recordings of traffic stops in Canada? I don't think so. The officers might not like it though. How would you like it if you were a teller in a bank and a customer came in and put a tape recorder down prior to talking to you? Might put you on edge, right? Or if they held a camcorder on you throughout the entire transaction? Pretty weird, huh? But again, I don't think it's illegal, just kind of rude if you're aggressive about it.

Recording cuts both ways though - the police can also record you. I've heard that some police officers do this with pocket recorders (paid for themselves) for their own protection in case people later allege that the police beat them up, or called them names, etc.

Also, a bunch of the traffic unit cars have cameras in them now, and they do record driving and interactions between the driver and the police.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by broken_legs
[B]
But to be honest, I was not cool or collected. Couldn't remember half of the stuff in the video.


I've not watched the video, but the rules are simple.

1. Be respectful.
2. Volunteer nothing.
3. Consent to nothing.
4. Be respectful.


As soon as you resist the cops, they're more likely to get punitive on you.... but if you forget rules 1 or 4, you can be they're going to clear their schedule to make you know who's boss.

Even if they're in the wrong, no big deal... they can just hand off to the courts who'll continue sucking up your time on their behalf. When the dust finally settles, they'll still have their badge, and you'll have a sore ass.

I'm curious - Would you approach differently next time. Would you resist more? Try to resist more effectively? Would you be more compliant to avoid the hassle?

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by broken_legs

The officer told me "Listen this is just a formality, I could arrest you for speeding already" - As if to indicate he could search me anyways.

Ah, and there's the "hook". I'm sure there's a term for this practice in the police world... I've seen it often enough. They get you on something small, threaten to blow it out of proportion in order to ensure your complete cooperation.


Years ago, an RCMP officer invited me to a "meeting" in which he asked me to be an informant in order to help me "avoid a misunderstanding". I was actually more afraid for my own rep than I was of the cop... and I thought he was wearing a wire..

The last thing I wanted was him to record me consenting to be a rat, which would only give him further leverage......so I clearly and formally annunciated: "Officer, I am not in a position to help you, but even if I was, I am afraid that I would not be able to provide you with any information".

I waited for the axe to fall. I expected them to turn my life upside down over a fairly small offence. They didn't... because at the end of the day, they were just fishing, looking to turn a small catch into a big one.

[Ven]

You weren't arrested, you were detained. You were detained because of reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. Speeding. Indeed you could have been arrested, especially at that speed.

The car is not your property and can be searched. You and the vehicle were searched because the officer had probable cause to do so. Consent not needed.

Cuffs and pat downs are discretionary S.O.P.

There will be nothing recorded other than the ticket.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by LollerBrader

I'm curious - Would you approach differently next time. Would you resist more? Try to resist more effectively? Would you be more compliant to avoid the hassle?

Another question for Broken legs: Do you feel differently about the police since this encounter? How has your opinion changed?

[sabad66]

Originally posted by Ven
The car is not your property and can be searched. You and the vehicle were searched because the officer had probable cause to do so. Consent not needed.
How do you figure they had probably cause? The Bob Marley CD?

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Ven
You weren't arrested, you were detained. You were detained because of reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. Speeding. Indeed you could have been arrested, especially at that speed.

The car is not your property and can be searched. You and the vehicle were searched because the officer had probable cause to do so. Consent not needed.

Cuffs and pat downs are discretionary S.O.P.

There will be nothing recorded other than the ticket.

^^ Pretty sure everything you have written here is wrong.





Originally posted by LollerBrader


Another question for Broken legs: Do you feel differently about the police since this encounter? How has your opinion changed?

I will better articulate myself if this ever happens again. If I wasn't being such a pussy about the whole thing I probably could handled the situation better.


Originally posted by LollerBrader

I'm curious - Would you approach differently next time. Would you resist more? Try to resist more effectively? Would you be more compliant to avoid the hassle?

^^The Front Line is Everywhere. :thumbsup:

IgqCis9bzM4

^^ Only thought to record after cop left the first time with my ID. The first encounter didn't go so well after I asked if he needed a reason to search - thats why i started recording.

[calgary403]

I always though they needed "reasonable suspicion" to even call a k-9.


I also like how he threatens you with a fine and than says "You don't need that."

He also placed you under arrest for the dog alerting. I never knew a police dog alerting was an arrestable offence?

[Ven]

You were detained because you were found in violation of the Traffic Safety Act. Speeding.

You were in cuffs because you either lost your cool or were showing signs of doing so. This is not an arrest. S.O.P for people showing signs of going sideways.

You and the vehicle were searched because the officer had probably cause to do so. Why? A person(s) in the process of, or having committed a crime, allows the officer to enhance their investigation. Discretionary, and no consent or warrant needed.

You were way over the limit. That raises some flags. Then you lost your cool and got all strange. More flags. So the officer decided to dig a bit deeper.

Nothing will be on record other than the ticket. Doesn't matter you were cuffed, or searched, or K9 attended.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Ven
You and the vehicle were searched because the officer had probably cause to do so. Why? A person(s) in the process of, or having committed a crime, allows the officer to enhance their investigation. Discretionary, and no consent or warrant needed.


Enhance their investigation to find evidence towards SPEEDING?? They can't fish for other unrelated shit by opening his trunk. By your logic, a car could be pulled over for doing 1km/h over the limit and the officer could go to town.

[Ven]

Originally posted by Feruk


Enhance their investigation to find evidence towards SPEEDING??

No, not evidence towards speeding. Evidence towards whatever gave the officer probable cause that there may be more the story than the traffic infraction. Almost 60kph over the limit did this. Not the Bob Marley CD.


Originally posted by Feruk
They can't fish for other unrelated shit by opening his trunk. By your logic, a car could be pulled over for doing 1km/h over the limit and the officer could go to town.

On both counts they can, given probable cause.

[dexlargo]

^probable cause is american language, in Canada we would use 'reasonable grounds', and a police officer couldn't normally search a vehicle on a traffic violation, unless he had something more than the traffic violation to ground the search. What about driving 60 over the limit indicates that a person has narcotics? I'm all ears.

Plus: He was arrested - I don't know why you keep writing that he wasn't - right after the dog purportedly alerted to the presence of contraband. They read him his rights and everything. He was later released without charge when the grounds for arrest evaporated.

[Jlude]

Definitely shitty situation... but as long as the cop isn't being a dick about stuff, then whatever. He's really just doing his job.

If he is being a dick and blatently power tripping... get his badge number/ name.... find his address/info.... get a picture of him... go find some random crackhead (wear a mask) give the crackhead a throw away pay as you go cell phone and 100 bucks... tell him to (insert whatever you want here) and tell him he'll get the rest of the money when it's done.

:dunno:

[dexlargo]

OP, I just listened to your audio, and these are the facts I could identify. They had asked you about the rental, you had told them that you rented the car, drove to BC and either were on your way back to Calgary, or were going to BC again, to attend a course. You couldn't show the rental agreement (you found it later). You were driving at an excessive speed, presumably on the highways between here and wherever in BC - Maybe the officer thought that the car might be stolen before you found the rental agreement, good thing you found that. It seems that these things, combined with other things the police officer learned, observed and anything else you said earlier, made the officer suspicious that you were transporting drugs. That's why he detained. It doesn't look to me like he was just making things up, and he certainly appears to be attempting to do things in a reasonable manner.

The only issue I see that you are arguing is about whether the dog alerted or not. It sounds like from what you have written that the dog handling officer communicated to the arresting officer that the dog alerted for contraband. So if someone is lying about the dog, it would appear to be the dog handler, not your officer. He's allowed to use information told to him by other people to form his reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

I think it's likely that the dog did alert, but you're not familiar with the dog and its training, and so don't know what the dog's alert signal is, or missed the signal while peering out of the back of the police cruiser.

It all sounds legit, you just got unlucky that factors conspired to make you look like you could be involved in a crime, and then even more unlucky when the dog alerted when there wasn't anything in your car.

Maybe the lot jockey at the car rental place smoked up in the car and left some traces - who knows?

Furthermore, the comment the officer makes about 'a formality', it looks like he's being nice to you. He isn't saying that he could arrest you for speeding and search the car pursuant to arrest, he appears to be saying that he could arrest you, read you your rights and then keep you in handcuffs while he does his other investigation, but instead, he's just going to detain you so that the whole process will be quicker should the dog not find anything, and you could then be on your way. It didn't go quite like that, but in the end you were on your way with only a traffic ticket.

What was the ticket for in the end? Speeding? Driving at unreasonable rate? Conceivably driving at that speed you could have been charged with dangerous driving.

All in all, it appears to me that you were treated very reasonably - as I wrote above, you just got unlucky with some factors making you look like you had done more serious things than you actually did.

[Ven]

Dex, my bad, yes he was arrested. The OP's first post format threw me off.

We have reasonable grounds and probable cause here. The OP was pulled over under reasonable grounds because he was in the process of, or had committed a crime. Speeding. Any time an officer deems there's a crime in progress or has been committed it gives him reasonable grounds to detain and question. Once the lights come on, you are effectively detained. You can be detained in cuffs, or in your car, or whatever.

He was searched because the officer had probable cause to do so. The large amount over the speed limit and the OP losing his cool. That is enough of a trigger for the officer to suspect there's more going on here than just a speeding ticket, hence probable cause to investigate a little more, and it doesn't need to be anything to do with speeding. Had this been a 10kph over and calm interaction then the OP would have likely never left his drivers seat.

He was arrested when the dog showed some positive signs. S.O.P. and a total formality. It never would have went anywhere regardless. It's a rental and nothing was found. Attending officers knew there could have been narcotics prior to the OP renting the car. They could have seized the car for testing and swabbed/pissed the OP if they really wanted to go that far.

The OP has no record of arrest for this incident.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by Ven
Dex, my bad, yes he was arrested. The OP's first post format threw me off.

We have reasonable grounds and probable cause here. The OP was pulled over under reasonable grounds because he was in the process of, or had committed a crime. Speeding. Any time an officer deems there's a crime in progress or has been committed it gives him reasonable grounds to detain and question. Once the lights come on, you are effectively detained. You can be detained in cuffs, or in your car, or whatever.

He was searched because the officer had probable cause to do so. The large amount over the speed limit and the OP losing his cool. That is enough of a trigger for the officer to suspect there's more going on here than just a speeding ticket, hence probable cause to investigate a little more, and it doesn't need to be anything to do with speeding. Had this been a 10kph over and calm interaction then the OP would have likely never left his drivers seat.

He was arrested when the dog showed some positive signs. S.O.P. and a total formality. It never would have went anywhere regardless. It's a rental and nothing was found. Attending officers knew there could have been narcotics prior to the OP renting the car. They could have seized the car for testing and swabbed/pissed the OP if they really wanted to go that far.

The OP has no record of arrest for this incident.

Are you a police officer?

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Ven
The large amount over the speed limit and the OP losing his cool.


I was not cool or collected. I was mostly in shock, kind of scared, and pretty much a big pussy

How does that translate into 'losing my cool'. You make it sound like I was losing it on the cop. It was the exact opposite.

Anyways....

By the sounds of the analysis provided by everyone, this was just bad luck for me I guess. I won't drive so fast (in the park) anymore. :D

[calgary403]

Originally posted by Ven
They could have seized the car for testing and swabbed/pissed the OP if they really wanted to go that far.

The OP has no record of arrest for this incident.

:facepalm:

That's all this deserves.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by LollerBrader


We need to send more troops to Afghanistan to fight for our freedoms until this sort of thing stops.

lol best post in this thread

[BigMass]

broken_legs i'm actually shocked that you would be shocked at what happened. I can understand at you being shaken up by what happened but do you really have to ask why?

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by BigMass
broken_legs i'm actually shocked that you would be shocked at what happened. I can understand at you being shaken up by what happened but do you really have to ask why?

As stated before, I've had many encounters with police, and none of them have ever resulted in me being arrested for possession of narcotics, or arrested for anything else.

If the officer just straight up said, you were going really fast, I'm going to arrest you for being a D-Bag on my highway, take away your license, and give you a huge fine, I would totally understand. That makes sense to me.

Getting arrested for drugs doesn't make sense to me.

I am still shocked.

[J-hop]

shitty luck man, (but next time slow down, the cop IMO was justified in harassing you haha). Not that I can add to the thread much, but while working for a rental company, on numerous occasions vehicles came back with traces (or full bags) of marijuana and other drugs (found one car with syringes and odd substances in a bag), so always check through your car (under seats, trunk etc) for drugs before leaving as when a detailer has 5 minutes to detail a car and have it back on the lot they don't always have time to do a thorough clean of the car. Just a head up!!

[soiledunderwear]

Originally posted by J-hop
shitty luck man, (but next time slow down, the cop IMO was justified in harassing you haha). Not that I can add to the thread much, but while working for a rental company, on numerous occasions vehicles came back with traces (or full bags) of marijuana and other drugs (found one car with syringes and odd substances in a bag), so always check through your car (under seats, trunk etc) for drugs before leaving as when a detailer has 5 minutes to detail a car and have it back on the lot they don't always have time to do a thorough clean of the car. Just a head up!!

If you were in the same position, you would call your rich daddy to bail you out.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by soiledunderwear


If you were in the same position, you would call your rich daddy to bail you out.

who said I had a rich daddy?

[max_boost]

Your parents make $300K. That's rich. :bigpimp:

[J-hop]

Originally posted by max_boost
Your parents make $300K. That's rich. :bigpimp:

holy shit, wtf does that have to do with this thread. Anyways I wonder who soiledunderwear is :D, LMAO at regulars making dummy accounts because they are too scared to speak their mind on their main account....

[soiledunderwear]

Originally posted by J-hop


who said I had a rich daddy?

You did. Both your mommy and and your daddy you little man.