Judge throws out a 27,000 fentanyl Pill bust

[Itse]

Throwing out evidence because of illegal police procedure is dumb and unnecessary. There are plenty of countries that don't do that, Finland for example, and there's no issue with unlegal searches by the police.

Of course it's not the judges fault that you have dumb laws.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Itse

Throwing out evidence because of illegal police procedure is dumb and unnecessary. There are plenty of countries that don't do that, Finland for example, and there's no issue with unlegal searches by the police.

Of course it's not the judges fault that you have dumb laws.

So what would happen in a case like this and what remedy does a person whose rights were violated have?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The drugs will absolutely be destroyed, and obviously the defendant, while free, is now known to police and will have a more difficult time returning to this sort of practice.

Itse, I have no knowledge of Finnish law, but I strongly doubt that there is no remedy for a an illegal search there. If that were true, it would reflect terribly on Finland, not Canada.

Interesting side note: the judge in this case was, before being appointed, a career prosecutor. Hardly a defendant's dream.

[metallicat]

Can't imagine the suspect is going to be passing any interviews for future drug running after this. Bit of a bullseye on his back now.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Didn't realize the decision was already up.

First off, the reporting was worse than I assumed. Holy crap it's bad.

At paragraph 208 Justice Brundrett summarizes the evidence on the dog search:

[208] To summarize, the following factors give rise to concern about the reliability of the particular alert in this context:

(a) the highly ambiguous nature of the dog’s partial sit signal in and of itself;

(b) the fact that the partial sit indication was given by PSD Doods for the first-time ever. Cpl. Catellier could not have recognized the partial sit as one that indicated the presence of narcotics;

(c) the fact that a partial sit indication was not a signal that PSD Doods had been trained to give and as such is not empirically validated;

(d) the incongruity of the dog’s inability to fully sit when measured against the fact that this detection dog was accustomed to being able to fully sit even in tight environments;

(e) the lack of a follow-up search of the exterior of the van, or a reset of the sniffer search, to clearly remove any ambiguity from the result of the first search;

(f) the change in Cpl. Catellier’s evidence as to the timing and degree of the alert; and

(g) the fact that the general conditions were “ideal” for the sniffer dog to search.

http://canlii.ca/t/hx3vq

Of note, the judge sided with the officer as opposed to the expert witness.

[OMG!WTF!]

He should sue to get his pillies back.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Itse

Throwing out evidence because of illegal police procedure is dumb and unnecessary.

Just read what you wrote. "Illegal police procedure" if you don't see that as an oxymoron of the 10th degree, than that's on Finland not Canada.

Canada, like every country worth its salt has laws preventing the unreasonable search and seizure. But of course a country like Finland that still practices required sterilization for transgendered people doesn't care much about its citizens rights.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Just read what you wrote. "Illegal police procedure" if you don't see that as an oxymoron of the 10th degree, than that's on Finland not Canada.

Canada, like every country worth its salt has laws preventing the unreasonable search and seizure. But of course a country like Finland that still practices required sterilization for transgendered people doesn't care much about its citizens rights.

[GP_Matt]

I would assume that if the defendant was somehow able to pick up his pills from the police they would also have reasonable grounds to search him on the spot leading to his arrest for holding said pills.

As to the debate, I am firmly in the camp of Charter Rights are important and shouldn't be ignored because it is convenient. It sucks to see a drug runner go free but that is part of the system if the rules are not followed.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-...-time/10568410

From Australia. The problem seemingly being the dog can't distinguish enough between someone having been in possession of drugs (smoking a joint the day before) and being in possession of drugs (i.e. actually have drugs on them).

There is also the issue of handler bias. If the handler believes there are drugs there, the dog is more likely to give the signal even if there isn't:

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/56388...dogs-that-bite

I have also read some theories that the handler can easily cue the dog to give a false positive whenever they want probable cause which would be a gross misuse of police power.

[Wormius]

What is happening with the dogs now that MJ is legal? Do they retire them or retrain them to ignore cannabis?

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Wormius

What is happening with the dogs now that MJ is legal? Do they retire them or retrain them to ignore cannabis?

So they’ll still be trained for marihuana as there are still aspects for enforcement under the cannabis act. Now as far as grounds for search of a vehicle or person that’ll be interesting.

[spydermal]

Originally Posted by nik-

*chung chung*

Executive Producer Dick Wolf

[Radio]

I am all for charter rights but I am not sad they got those pills off the streets even if the dirt bag carrying them wasn't. Sometimes mistakes work out for the best.

Crazy this is on TV right now.

He was pulled over. The 59 year old guy is nervous, has multiple cell phones, and a BS story of an overnight trip to buy used tires. The cop detains him in his car and tells him his dog is a drug sniffer. The handler says the dog detects drugs and they search the vehicle. They don't find anything roadside so he tows it and they find the pills in a compartment in the wheel well on the side the dog indicated, or partially indicated.

The dog was basically on trial because it sat but hit the curb and stood up right away. The pills couldn't be used as evidence but will be destroyed by the RCMP.

So again unfortunate for the police but I am glad those pills are off the street.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The drugs will absolutely be destroyed, and obviously the defendant, while free, is now known to police and will have a more difficult time returning to this sort of practice.

Wouldn't that make it harder to bust him, given that he is known to them "improperly"? It's not like they can be given a memory wipe to reset everything.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by guzzy

There is always one of you.

What? There's lots, hence why we still have some freedoms and protection left. I don't think we will have very much as the decades go by, but there's still a decent portion of the population (not enough) that recognizes the importance.

It's fascinating to watch, actually. Nobody has the 30000 ft view see how the world changes before their eyes, unfortunately.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

To me the article was not clear, did they have to give the drugs back to the driver, or are they seized?

Just dumb to be speeding while carrying that much in drugs

Good lord, man. Of course seized drugs aren't returned, of course.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GGG

So what would happen in a case like this and what remedy does a person whose rights were violated have?

I'm no legal expert, but another thing with the Finnish legal system is that it's about sentencing people who break the law.

I guess you could put it this way: we don't look at it as "your rights being violated". We look at it as "a policeman breaking the law".

The police would have committed a crime, for which they go to court.

And the person with the Fentanyl pills would have committed a crime, for which they go to court.

It's actually a completely different legal system that most of the world uses outside of Britain and some former British colonies. One where the court is not a battleground of two sides, but a place where the goal is to find out what are the facts and how those facts relate to the law. Lawyers aren't pitched in a battle against each other, they're there to make sure their side is fairly represented.

It makes for much less dramatic court cases (one poorly suited for TV for example), but it's honestly just a better legal system. It's highly reliable, highly predictable and is less prone to producing ridiculous situations where a person who everyone knows did the crime gets off because of some trivial technicality. It's not impossible to make mistakes that let someone off the hook, but it's not as easy.

Oh, and Finland is consistently one of the top ranked countries for civil rights.

(That said, sterilization of trans people is a major blemish, and something a lot of people are trying to fix.)

And let me just repeat:
You're the minority here. Most of the world does not see ignoring evidence as sensible, and it's a complete non-issue. Nobody who does it our way thinks it's a problem. Lots of people who do it your way think it's ridiculous, including a lot of people in this thread.

Your system is dumb in this regard, and you'd be smart to change it.

[Northendzone]

i wonder if the boys that owned/bought those pills ever touch base with the driver to "catch up"

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm no legal expert, but another thing with the Finnish legal system is that it's about sentencing people who break the law.

I guess you could put it this way: we don't look at it as "your rights being violated". We look at it as "a policeman breaking the law".

The police would have committed a crime, for which they go to court.

And the person with the Fentanyl pills would have committed a crime, for which they go to court.

It's actually a completely different legal system that most of the world uses outside of Britain and some former British colonies. One where the court is not a battleground of two sides, but a place where the goal is to find out what are the facts and how those facts relate to the law. Lawyers aren't pitched in a battle against each other, they're there to make sure their side is fairly represented.

It makes for much less dramatic court cases (one poorly suited for TV for example), but it's honestly just a better legal system. It's highly reliable, highly predictable and is less prone to producing ridiculous situations where a person who everyone knows did the crime gets off because of some trivial technicality. It's not impossible to make mistakes that let someone off the hook, but it's not as easy.

Oh, and Finland is consistently one of the top ranked countries for civil rights.

(That said, sterilization of trans people is a major blemish, and something a lot of people are trying to fix.)

And let me just repeat:
You're the minority here. Most of the world does not see ignoring evidence as sensible, and it's a complete non-issue. Nobody who does it our way thinks it's a problem. Lots of people who do it your way think it's ridiculous, including a lot of people in this thread.

Your system is dumb in this regard, and you'd be smart to change it.

Thanks,

What prevents the police from making a judgment of this person is worth breaking the law for?