...did exactly that and got sh't kicked within an inch of his life.
Quote:
First of all, this is pure speculation. You can't accuse people of doing things that never happened.
It's a hypothetical question. People pose them all the time. What do you think the cop would have done if challenged? There are dozens of examples of this in Canada that are not hypothetical. Google and yee shall find. The point is, we know pretty much exactly what would have happened. And it's a violation of charter rights. I'm not interested in being an apologist in life.
Quote:
However, the police have rights too. You can't take away their right to ask things of people just because people have a tendency to take those requests as orders
As long as you are not obstructing justice, there's never any reason what so ever for a cop to ask you to stop filming. It shouldn't happen because it is an abuse of authority. The philosophy should be and is becoming "Assume you're being filmed at all times and act accordingly." That's not too much to ask at all.
Quote:
However, if they captured any part of the offense or can be used as evidence, the grounds are there to seize the phone for evidence without warrant as it is in plain view.
I think you have to be the person arrested for any warrentless seizure to occur.
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
(2) Every peace officer, and every public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, who is lawfully present in a place pursuant to a warrant or otherwise in the execution of duties may, without a warrant, seize any thing that the officer believes on reasonable grounds
(a) has been obtained by the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament;
(b) has been used in the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament; or
(c) will afford evidence in respect of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament.
It would be up to the officer to be able to articulate the evidence believed to be on the digital medium (ie. audio, video, both). That article you posted originally from the Hamilton Spectator was right in the sense that there's nothing "illegal" about filming cops but if there is evidence afforded in what the video captured, that video and device can be seized.
edit: I should add some clarity. The phone/recording device could be seized however the police would most likely need a warrant to search the phone and obtain the video from it. But still, the phone could be seized at the time of capturing the incident.
Last edited by jar_e; 04-13-2015 at 08:09 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to jar_e For This Useful Post:
It would be up to the officer to be able to articulate the evidence believed to be on the digital medium (ie. audio, video, both). That article you posted originally from the Hamilton Spectator was right in the sense that there's nothing "illegal" about filming cops but if there is evidence afforded in what the video captured, that video and device can be seized.
edit: I should add some clarity. The phone/recording device could be seized however the police would most likely need a warrant to search the phone and obtain the video from it. But still, the phone could be seized at the time of capturing the incident.
Well, yeah, anything can be seized in connection to a crime and subsequently searched upon a granted warrant. That's not what you said. What you said was that any video device can be seized and used as evidence without warrant.
The Supreme Court made a ruling specifically about cell phone searches saying that any unwarranted search needs to be in connection to the accused in a crime...
There are several examples of police seizing video and then having to give it back....Robert Dziekanski for example. Also many examples of cops not seizing video...Sammy Yatim. I'm actually not 100% sure cops can seize a private device in connection to a crime if you are not involved in the crime. Do you have an example of a person's private device being seized and a warrant for search granted? I really don't know the answer to that. The Globe and Mail article contradicts the act you highlighted.
Well, yeah, anything can be seized in connection to a crime and subsequently searched upon a granted warrant. That's not what you said. What you said was that any video device can be seized and used as evidence without warrant.
The Supreme Court made a ruling specifically about cell phone searches saying that any unwarranted search needs to be in connection to the accused in a crime...
There are several examples of police seizing video and then having to give it back....Robert Dziekanski for example. Also many examples of cops not seizing video...Sammy Yatim. I'm actually not 100% sure cops can seize a private device in connection to a crime if you are not involved in the crime. Do you have an example of a person's private device being seized and a warrant for search granted? I really don't know the answer to that. The Globe and Mail article contradicts the act you highlighted.
First off, I said in my original post that police could seize the phone as evidence. Not search it. I clarified that in my second post. The physical phone itself could be seized without warrant at the time of incident. Technically its "evidence" at that point, just pending a further search. Its semantics nonetheless, but I feel we're arguing the same point.
There's no point in my replying to that Globe and Mail article as I already stated that police would most likely need a warrant to obtain the video off the phone. Secondly, that caselaw doesn't apply as that was referencing a phone seized from an arrested person which this is not.
Do you have any sources stating that police seized the video and then did not give the device back? The phone is now evidence and is held until the court proceedings so that the accused, who has a right to a fair trial, can have all the evidence presented in disclosure and for court. It is possible that in these incidents the phone was held until trial as it is an exhibit. In my experience, depending on the severity of it, usually the digital data suffices provided it was obtained in the proper channels with tech experts, etc.
Also, I'm not stating every time someone records police that their phone is going to be seized under this. I'm sure there's hundreds of thousands of examples where police did not seize a phone if it recorded an incident. However, I'm simply stating there are the grounds for police to do it if required.
I just posted the Criminal Code section for seizing things without warrant. It does not refer to searching digital devices as most of that is Case Law for right now (hence R vs. Fearon) which declared that warrantless searches of digital data on a cell phone are allowed given they meet the two rules:
Quote:
The arrest must be lawful – This is the case for any situation; it just means if the arrest isn’t lawful, then neither is the search.
The search must be incidental to the arrest and police need an “objectively reasonable” reason to conduct the search. These include: protecting police/the accused/the public; preserving evidence; discovering evidence such as finding more suspects.
However, this caselaw is moot when it comes to the point I'm making. The phone can be seized if there is belief that while filming an incident, evidence was captured on said device. A warrant may be required to search the phone and seize the digital evidence from the phone.
A loose comparison would be the ability to seize a vehicle from a roadway (no warrant needed) and then doing a warrant on the vehicle to locate contents that weren't in plain view.
Gotcha. You did however say cops could seize your cell phone without warrant for use as evidence in a crime you were not involved in. That's all that was tripping me up. 100% good now.
Probably warranted, but based on camera car officer's reaction... they weren't exactly on the same page with this one.
Probably warranted? The man is casually shooting rounds in a neighbourhood. Simply being ran over, and surviving, instead of shot down is the absolute best outcome this man could have hoped for. If it wasn't an attempt at suicide-by-police it was an extremely mentally unstable person who could have easily ended anyone's life in the vicinity. Cop's a hero for running into the brick fence.
Oh I agree 100%... in the initial post when I put something in here I try not to be opinionated. I love how he just drove around his coworker, didn't say anything on the radio, and just drilled him. Fantastic.
Yeah, it sounds like a mistake. But the officer that shot him was 73!?! Seriously, 73 year olds are being handed loaded weapons and are fighting crime. It was only a matter of time until one would go for the taser and pull the gun instead.
For that matter, why was he even going for a taser at that point? The guy was already caught.
Tasers may have been the worst thing invented because it seems like every cop is just itching to use them.
The man was not an actual cop. He was an auxiliary officer. He is a millionaire that donates money and supplies to the local police that also volunteers with them. He thought he was grabbing his tazer.
This guy had no official police traing at all! This is exactly why RCMP auxiliary officers do not get the right to carry anything other than a flashlight.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 04-14-2015 at 09:10 PM.
Running does not mean you should fire. Lethal force needs to be applied against dangerous criminals. Not just because they are resisting.
The Vancouver one I get. He stabbed three people. These others... all years these others...
Loitering? Traffic stops? A spade is a spade. Too many warrior cops in the states. Period. They are high on their power and have mixed in a healthy dose of racism. Every single unit in America needs to be retrained.
I'm not even joking on this. It's disgusting. It's police state. In blue and red states.
The man was not an actual cop. He was an auxiliary officer. He is a millionaire that donates money and supplies to the local police that also volunteers with them. He thought he was grabbing his tazer.
This guy had no official police traing at all! This is exactly why RCMP auxiliary officers do not get the right to carry anything other than a flashlight.
I'm not sure they should really even be allowed to have a flashlight. They already have two arms, so they can give hugs to everyone.
Frame 36: (Boom), Frames 38 and 39: "Oh I... I shot him... I'm sorry."
and
Eric: "I'm losing my breath" cop: " ##### your breath" RIP Eric
Quote:
Days after an Oklahoma reserve deputy sheriff was charged with manslaughter for a fatal incident in which he mistook his gun for a Taser, a report in the Tulsa World has called into question whether he should have been carrying a gun in the first place.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, individuals told the World that supervisors in the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office were ordered to falsify training records for Robert Bates, the 73-year-old insurance executive who fired his gun instead of a Taser, killing an unarmed black man, apparently by accident. The false records gave Bates credit for field training he never took and firearms certifications he should not have received, the World reported.
The Tulsa paper added that at least three of Bates’s supervisors were transferred after refusing to sign off on the state-required training.
Bates was certified as a “reserve deputy” — a volunteer position that requires applicants to undergo a mental capacity test and obtain certification from Oklahoma’s Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training, local ABC affiliate KJRH reported. Reserve deputies must also re-qualify with a weapon each year.
Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz told KJRH that Bates had qualified for three weapons with the supervision of a firearms instructor, but the office was not able to find records from the qualification test. The instructor who trained Bates has since left the Tulsa Sheriff’s Office.
“And we’re trying to get hold of her and talk to her but we can’t find the records that she supposedly turned in. So, we’re going to talk to her find out if, for sure, he did qualify with those,” Glanz said.
Since Bates is an “advanced” reserve, he had to have undergone 480 hours of the “field training officer” program to maintain his certification.
