police question

[tim reyes]

i was taking some clothes across the street, to a friends house, when on the way back i was half way across when a police came from out of the bushes and order me back to my car where one of my friends was waiting for me to return back from asking my father permission to take him home, the officer had us lay on the ground then 3 more patrol units join in, when they got out of there cars they began to open my car doors and started to search my car without my permission, is this legal?

[88CRX]

set down the crack pipe budddy..... its gonna be alright.

[QuasarCav]

yeah, you must of looked pretty shady to warrant 3 cop cars and a full search.

By clothes do you mean guns/drugs!:dunno:

[ryder_23]

you had to have been doing something...no way cops would just do that...

[EK 2.0]

even if you weren't doing anything, you may have fit the description of individuals in the area who were up to no good, so I mean I know it was prolly scary as hell:eek: ...but they are just doing their job man...


So clothes, is that what they call drugs today, in my day we called them "turbos" and "intercoolers"

[QuasarCav]

Originally posted by CycloneAWD
even if you weren't doing anything, you may have fit the description of individuals in the area who were up to no good, so I mean I know it was prolly scary as hell:eek: ...but they are just doing their job man...


So clothes, is that what they call drugs today, in my day we called them "turbos" and "intercoolers"


we called them skateboards, buying a bag was picking up trucks and wheels!

[Shaolin]

I was driving my buddy home from the pub a couple months back and I was following a cop SUV, he quickly pulls to the curb, i pass him and he flies up right behind me. I got pulled over right infront of his house by a Sargeant, then few seconds later another cop pulls out of no where..

my buddy's a cop, so he flashed his badge and everything was cool.. but apparently there was a stolen car in the area and mine matched the description. So yeah, there could be many reasons why they searched you.

[dogmaiwli]

Did they find "ANYTHING" ;)

They "have to" (used loosely) tell you why they are searching you.

They "have to" have reasonable suspiscion, I.e. (they saw you smoking a fattie in the car) etc.....

I'm Fortuante/Unfortunate enough to look like a big geek so they don't usually bother me (Knock on wood)

[ryder_23]

I know in the US, not sure how it works in canada, but they have to ask for your permission to search your vehicle, unless they have a warrant, or large suspicion, , aka, dog sniffs out drugs, or like said, you fit discription of stolen car, drug dealers, etc...

[CRX crazy]

the cops are allowed to search your car without a warrant, they can look in the glove compartment or anything like it, they are also allowed to look under the hood and in the trunk. However they are not allowed to start taking things apart ie. door panels and such without a search warrant.

Thats what I have come to understand. But if it was just "clothes" then who cares, there just cops and unless your actually doing somthing wrong no need to worry right :thumbsup:

[fcuk_it]

nope they NEED to have a search warrent to search your car unless it is under suspicsion, and they need a good reason to have your car under suspicsion... if they go ahead and do an illegal search and find anything ex. drugs, weapons..... let's see if that will hold up in court... had many friends been in this sort of situations and they got off w/ all charges and no court

[TheBiz]

hmm, i would like to know also, anyone have a reference for these statements?

[1badPT]

2 words. "Probable cause" Hard for them to prove they have it, hard for you to prove they don't have it. Judges side with the cops almost every time. Its the one area of law that actually gives the cops a much needed break.

Yeah it sucks but as it was pointed out before, they may have been looking for someone in your area matching your description or perhaps they were staking out the house you delivered your clothes to - whatever. They had reason to believe you were in the wrong and they checked you out - they are entitled to do that.

[Ducati]

I have seen and been affected by police abuses of power, however I believe that police today are much more of a professional lot than the cowboy thugs of the seventies and previous. People are people - cops are people and some are better suited than others.

"Probable Cause", "Reasonable Grounds" and "Suspicious Activity" are phrases that are used a lot in court and almost always accepted at face value by the judiciary.

[91rss]

If they have the reasonable Doubt,First ask them who said you did something wrong.Then start writing things down,and say you don't understand them or anything they say,If you don't understand them then the show stops until they get someone who can get you to understand them.that person can be a lawyer and if it take 2 hrs to get him to explain things so you"understand " them then so be it. They can search you if they have proof.which if they refuse to tell you who told them something,then you don't understand...and then you should tell them I need someone to explain this cause I don't understand you .my fathers best friend is a judge,and he said they have to prove it to him and if you can shed doubt on their proof as you asked for a reason so you can understand and they could not provide it..so they had no grounds to stop you,

[1badPT]

riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.... what was that?

[Ducati]

So, by replying "No Habla Anglais!" you can delay the search???

[ww667]

"A [motor vehicle] check stop does not and cannot constitute a general search warrant for searching every vehicle, driver and passenger that is pulled over. Unless there are reasonable and probable grounds for conducting the search, or drugs, alcohol or weapons are in plain view in the interior of the vehicle, the evidence flowing from such a search should not be admitted." [Cory, J., R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 16 C.R.(4th) 273,281.]


Might a warrantless search be justified? The answer comes from the Southam case: a warrantless search might be justified if it was reasonable; however all searches without a warrant are presumed to be unreasonable, which puts the burden on the crown to make out a case the in any particular case where a warrantless search was carried out by the police that it was reasonable. "A search will be reasonable if it is authorized by law, if the law itself is reasonable and if the manner in which the search was carried out is reasonable." (Lamer, Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265, 278.)

"The individual's reasonable expectation of privacy must, of course, be balanced against the public interest in effective law enforcement. However, where no circumstances exist which make the obtaining of a warrant impracticable and when the obtaining of the warrant would not impede effective law enforcement, a warrantless search of an office of fixed location (expect as an incident of a lawful arrest) cannot be justified and does not meet the constitutional standard of reasonableness prescribed by s. 8 of the Charter." [Martin, J., R. v. Rao (1984), 12 C.C.C.(3d) 97, at p. 123. (OCA).]

"[11] The purpose of s. 8 of the Charter is to protect people from unjustified state intrusion upon their privacy; that is why prior authorization is required. Where it is feasible to obtain prior authorization, that is a precondition for a valid search and seizure. That is why the Supreme Court of Canada in Southam ..., held (i) that it is a presumption that the search is unreasonable if it takes place without a warrant, (ii) that the Crown must rebut the presumption of unreasonableness in such circumstances; and (iii) the burden of proof is on a balance of probabilities. Where an application for a search warrant has been made the decision whether or not to grant a warrant requires a balancing of the interest of the individual's right to privacy against the state's interest in law enforcement.

"[12] A business establishment that is open to the public with an implied invitation to all members of the public to enter has no reasonable expectation of privacy from having a police officer enter the area of the premises to which the public is impliedly invited ..." (Hallett, J.A.; R. v. Fitt (1995), 139 N.S.R.(2d) (NSCA); In specifically supporting the reasons given by Justice Hallett, an appeal to the SCC was dismissed [148 N.S.R.(2d) 399]

[boostless]

nicely said
basically, if they do search u, they cant rip ur car apart, they will if u say nothing tho...

[CRX crazy]

Originally posted by boostless
nicely said
basically, if they do search u, they cant rip ur car apart, they will if u say nothing tho...

Thats what I said wayyyyyyyyyy up at the top of this post, just in different words :)