KEY WORDS: LIMITED INFO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannago
But, since the officer KNEW what he was looking for, it isn't all that hard to think that he probably did SUSPECT that their was an ILLEGAL RD in the vehicle - and he was correct.
Printable View
KEY WORDS: LIMITED INFO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannago
But, since the officer KNEW what he was looking for, it isn't all that hard to think that he probably did SUSPECT that their was an ILLEGAL RD in the vehicle - and he was correct.
"Hunches and suspicions" don't constitute reasonable grounds for a traffic stop, and just because he was correct still doesn't justify the stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._HarrisonQuote:
Originally Posted by teetoKEY WORDS: LIMITED INFO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannago
But, since the officer KNEW what he was looking for, it isn't all that hard to think that he probably did SUSPECT that their was an ILLEGAL RD in the vehicle - and he was correct.
"Background
On October 24, 2004, Bradley Harrison was driving an SUV with a friend near Kirkland Lake, Ontario. They were driving from Vancouver to Toronto. Constable Bertoncello of the Ontario Provincial Police observed that the vehicle had no front license plate, an offence if the car is registered in Ontario. Bertoncello activated his emergency lights and pulled the car over. He then realized the vehicle was registered in Alberta and was not required to have a front license plate. He was also informed by radio dispatch that the vehicle had been rented in Vancouver. At that time, Bertoncello has no grounds to believe any offence was being committed.
Nonetheless, Bertoncello was suspicious. The vehicle appeared to be "lived-in", which suggested it had been driven directly through from Vancouver. He knew that rental cars were often used by drug couriers. He knew that it was rare for drivers to drive that stretch of the road at exactly the speed limit, which Harrison had been doing. Finally, Harrison and his friend gave contradictory stories when questioned separately.
Trial
At the Superior Court of Ontario, the trial judge found the detention was based on a hunch or suspicion, and not on reasonable grounds. It was therefore an arbitrary detention and violated section 9 of the Charter. The judge also found that the search had nothing to do with why Harrison was arrested, and was therefore without lawful authority and violated section 8 of the Charter.
In determining whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, the judge applied the test found in R. v. Collins. In determining the seriousness of the breach, the judge was highly critical of Bertoncello's actions. He found that the officer's intentions "'was to take whatever steps were necessary to determine whether his suspicions were correct', notwithstanding the lack of any legal basis for the stop or search", and that the officer's actions "can only be described as brazen and flagrant". He also found that Bertoncello's in court testimony was "contrived and defy credibility".
However, the trial judge found that the officer's actions "pale in comparison" with the 35 kilograms of cocaine found in Harrison's vehicle. He therefore found that administration of justice would suffer more if the cocaine was excluded, and admitted the evidence."
Sadly...in this case, the drugs were admitted (which was BS!), but the caselaw appears as though it could apply to the immediate matter, and the possession of a STi Driver does not compare to the possession of 4 million dollars worth of coke destined for the streets. I'd certainly cite this precedent in my defense.
You're right, it doesn't compare because the law on radar detectors and drugs when it comes to search is completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannago"Hunches and suspicions" don't constitute reasonable grounds for a traffic stop, and just because he was correct still doesn't justify the stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._HarrisonQuote:
Originally Posted by teetoKEY WORDS: LIMITED INFO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannago
But, since the officer KNEW what he was looking for, it isn't all that hard to think that he probably did SUSPECT that their was an ILLEGAL RD in the vehicle - and he was correct.
"Background
On October 24, 2004, Bradley Harrison was driving an SUV with a friend near Kirkland Lake, Ontario. They were driving from Vancouver to Toronto. Constable Bertoncello of the Ontario Provincial Police observed that the vehicle had no front license plate, an offence if the car is registered in Ontario. Bertoncello activated his emergency lights and pulled the car over. He then realized the vehicle was registered in Alberta and was not required to have a front license plate. He was also informed by radio dispatch that the vehicle had been rented in Vancouver. At that time, Bertoncello has no grounds to believe any offence was being committed.
Nonetheless, Bertoncello was suspicious. The vehicle appeared to be "lived-in", which suggested it had been driven directly through from Vancouver. He knew that rental cars were often used by drug couriers. He knew that it was rare for drivers to drive that stretch of the road at exactly the speed limit, which Harrison had been doing. Finally, Harrison and his friend gave contradictory stories when questioned separately.
Trial
At the Superior Court of Ontario, the trial judge found the detention was based on a hunch or suspicion, and not on reasonable grounds. It was therefore an arbitrary detention and violated section 9 of the Charter. The judge also found that the search had nothing to do with why Harrison was arrested, and was therefore without lawful authority and violated section 8 of the Charter.
In determining whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, the judge applied the test found in R. v. Collins. In determining the seriousness of the breach, the judge was highly critical of Bertoncello's actions. He found that the officer's intentions "'was to take whatever steps were necessary to determine whether his suspicions were correct', notwithstanding the lack of any legal basis for the stop or search", and that the officer's actions "can only be described as brazen and flagrant". He also found that Bertoncello's in court testimony was "contrived and defy credibility".
However, the trial judge found that the officer's actions "pale in comparison" with the 35 kilograms of cocaine found in Harrison's vehicle. He therefore found that administration of justice would suffer more if the cocaine was excluded, and admitted the evidence."
Sadly...in this case, the drugs were admitted (which was BS!), but the caselaw appears as though it could apply to the immediate matter, and the possession of a STi Driver does not compare to the possession of 4 million dollars worth of coke destined for the streets. I'd certainly cite this precedent in my defense.
Reasonable grounds for a search of a radar detector is as simple as, "As soon as I activated my radar, the car activated it's brakes suddenly."
It is REASONABLE to stop and search without warrant or permission.
I agree Teeto, but from what the OP stated, that is NOT what happened here. From what he has said, the RD never alerted, and he never braked in response. I struggle to see probable cause for the stop in the first place. That said, anything that transpired after he stopped him could be argued as inadmissible - even his "admission" by surrendering the RD.Quote:
Originally Posted by teetoYou're right, it doesn't compare because the law on radar detectors and drugs when it comes to search is completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannago"Hunches and suspicions" don't constitute reasonable grounds for a traffic stop, and just because he was correct still doesn't justify the stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._HarrisonQuote:
Originally Posted by teetoKEY WORDS: LIMITED INFO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannago
But, since the officer KNEW what he was looking for, it isn't all that hard to think that he probably did SUSPECT that their was an ILLEGAL RD in the vehicle - and he was correct.
"Background
On October 24, 2004, Bradley Harrison was driving an SUV with a friend near Kirkland Lake, Ontario. They were driving from Vancouver to Toronto. Constable Bertoncello of the Ontario Provincial Police observed that the vehicle had no front license plate, an offence if the car is registered in Ontario. Bertoncello activated his emergency lights and pulled the car over. He then realized the vehicle was registered in Alberta and was not required to have a front license plate. He was also informed by radio dispatch that the vehicle had been rented in Vancouver. At that time, Bertoncello has no grounds to believe any offence was being committed.
Nonetheless, Bertoncello was suspicious. The vehicle appeared to be "lived-in", which suggested it had been driven directly through from Vancouver. He knew that rental cars were often used by drug couriers. He knew that it was rare for drivers to drive that stretch of the road at exactly the speed limit, which Harrison had been doing. Finally, Harrison and his friend gave contradictory stories when questioned separately.
Trial
At the Superior Court of Ontario, the trial judge found the detention was based on a hunch or suspicion, and not on reasonable grounds. It was therefore an arbitrary detention and violated section 9 of the Charter. The judge also found that the search had nothing to do with why Harrison was arrested, and was therefore without lawful authority and violated section 8 of the Charter.
In determining whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, the judge applied the test found in R. v. Collins. In determining the seriousness of the breach, the judge was highly critical of Bertoncello's actions. He found that the officer's intentions "'was to take whatever steps were necessary to determine whether his suspicions were correct', notwithstanding the lack of any legal basis for the stop or search", and that the officer's actions "can only be described as brazen and flagrant". He also found that Bertoncello's in court testimony was "contrived and defy credibility".
However, the trial judge found that the officer's actions "pale in comparison" with the 35 kilograms of cocaine found in Harrison's vehicle. He therefore found that administration of justice would suffer more if the cocaine was excluded, and admitted the evidence."
Sadly...in this case, the drugs were admitted (which was BS!), but the caselaw appears as though it could apply to the immediate matter, and the possession of a STi Driver does not compare to the possession of 4 million dollars worth of coke destined for the streets. I'd certainly cite this precedent in my defense.
Reasonable grounds for a search of a radar detector is as simple as, "As soon as I activated my radar, the car activated it's brakes suddenly."
It is REASONABLE to stop and search without warrant or permission.
Quote from a Toronto Lawyer's site:
"What if you are pulled over by the police while driving your car? The police can pull you over for either a routine safety check or for a Highway Traffic Act violation. These are the types of stops that occur when you are speeding, you have a broken tail light or the police have set up a check-stop to ensure all drivers are licensed and insured. When you are stopped in this situation the driver must surrender all appropriate documents and identification to the officer. However, the driver and occupants are not compelled to provide any additional information to help the officers’ investigation. The occupants of the vehicle, including the driver, have the right to refuse to answer any investigative questions. Canadian citizens have no duty to assist the police in their investigation of crime.
When you are stopped in this situation the police officers may check the exterior of the vehicle to ensure compliance with the Highway Traffic act. They can check for visual appearance, brake and headlights, signals, meter seal, cleanliness, seat belts, ect. In the absence of a warrant these types of check do not permit the officers to search the inside of your vehicle. During a traffic violation stop or a routine check the police may only search the inside of your vehicle if they have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest, and the police have a search warrant.
How can the police form the grounds to arrest you during a routine check or a traffic violation stop? If a prohibited or suspicious item is visible to the officers in their plain view they will form the required grounds to conduct a search of the interior of your vehicle. Items such as drug paraphernalia, weapons, break and enter tools or anything resembling them may permit the police to search the inside of your vehicle, in the absence of a warrant. Neutral items, such as pagers and phones or items which could be found in any car for any legitimate reason will not justify a search of your vehicles interior or trunk."
Ask your friend did he tell anybody else about the trip/detector. Some people do strange things for weird reasons. Could even be women issues not that I think that it just could be. Just a phone call away, revenge is best served cold!
Now your statement is some funny sh1t. Are you sure thats the statement you want to roll with?Quote:
Originally Posted by teetoI know more cops personally (including my siblings) than you have friends .Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstglockem
Looking at the size of the jurisdiction and the amount of arrest of this particular department. A cop stealing a radar detector would be a nice change.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/201...r-police-radio
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/cr...n-1224506.html
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/cr...ug-229199.html
http://flaglerlive.com/19127/flagler...ce-brett-smith
http://gotowncrier.com/west-palm-bea...ton-p13040.htm
.
When I got caught with one of my first RD's back in 1987, the LEO gave me a property receipt slip for my stolen, I mean confiscated RD. The fine back then was $68.75, which I paid entirely with unrolled pennies. The woman taking the payment at the court house almost had a stroke when she saw how I was paying the ticket. She was pissed. I didn't care, she had major attitude. The LEO who took my RD lectured me on the side of the road for about ten minutes about how he hates RD's. He said he's scraped his fare share of bodies off the road because of speeders. He was none too happy either. As for where this theft took place; South Simcoe Police don't have a lot to do. This would be the talk of the locker room for weeks if not months. I drive through that mud hole (Bradford) regularly. The old Bradford Police were known as a bunch of cowboys before they became South Simcoe Police.
In dcdave's situation, IIRC, the LEO is a neighbor of his. The Spectre does NOT discern what kind of detector is being used, only that one IS being used. This "neighbor" must have noticed the Redline in his vehicle. How else would he be able to make the comment "Hand over your Redline"???
Good point, let's hope in court, his sworn testimony for the reasonable grounds that lead to the search of Dave's vehicle was for a different reason. Something in our community we know isn't true. June is fast approaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor