Judge throws out a 27,000 fentanyl Pill bust

[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

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The best sign that Charter rights are still working properly is the occasional case of public outrage when they're upheld. If those rights only applied when it was easy or convenient they'd serve no purpose at all.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The best sign that Charter rights are still working properly is the occasional case of public outrage when they're upheld. If those rights only applied when it was easy or convenient they'd serve no purpose at all.

Yes. yes.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

From the article "But the officer testified at the time that she displayed the other signs when she was out of sight of the video."

I would be interested in reading the judges ruling.

There may have been. Without knowing about the case I can only make assumptions based on the limited 'information' in the article.

I don't know how credible the officer was on the stand.
I don't know how hard the expert witness was questioned.
I don't know if the case turned on the dashboard cam or need for body cams. Perhaps if there was no video evidence the search would have been admissible, or if any signs were on the partial video.

I do know the judge accepted the expert witness' testimony. Something that shouldn't be discredited out of hand.

I do know that I want to read the actual decision.

Note, I'm not saying the judge necessarily made the right decision... I'm just saying that based on the article, I can understand why the judge found the search was unconstitutional.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I think you know the answer already.

Originally Posted by nik-

*chung chung*

Hehe glad someone picked up on that.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

It has to make the evidence inadmissible or else there isn’t a nuclear deterant against what I said above.

Why does a deterrent need to be nuclear? Isn't proportionality a fundamental principle of justice?

[Oling_Roachinen]

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/do...&resultIndex=1

The decision to omit the evidence.

[16] Although the Charter breach in this case was not the result of wilful or intentional disregard for the accused's rights, the breach could not be characterized as inadvertent or merely technical. Looking only at the one consideration related to the purported sit confirmation, I accept the Crown's argument that the important question in the s. 8 analysis was not whether the partial sit was an objectively reliable indication of the presence of drugs, but whether Corporal Catellier's belief his dog had intended to perform a sit was objectively reasonable as part of the analysis of the overall grounds.
[17] This is not a case where Corporal Catellier gave misleading evidence, as was the case in Harrison. As well, there is an element of novelty in what happened here, in that Corporal Catellier did not have the benefit of prior guidance as to what he could make from an ambiguous or partial sit indication. He admitted on the stand that he was briefly puzzled as to what to do after his dog's ambiguous alert.
[18] Nevertheless, I have found that Corporal Catellier was too quick to rely on his dog's ambiguous behaviour as supplementing his grounds to arrest the accused and to search the vehicle incident to that arrest in reliance upon those insufficient grounds. In other words, I found that Corporal Catellier's interpretation of his dog's purported partial sit was not reasonable on an objective basis.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by SebC

Why does a deterrent need to be nuclear? Isn't proportionality a fundamental principle of justice?

Not allowing evidence found from blatant infringement of Charter Rights isn't even a nuclear option. That's just reasonable logic.

Nuclear option would be extremely hefty punishment on police that fail to meet Charter Right stipulations when doing searches and seizures.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Not allowing evidence found from blatant infringement of Charter Rights isn't even a nuclear option. That's just reasonable logic.

Nuclear option would be extremely hefty punishment on police that fail to meet Charter Right stipulations when doing searches and seizures.

While I disagree that it allowing criminals to go free is the correct way to address to improper search and seizure, it's true that there could be other, harsher (and disproportionate) deterrents.

[mrdonkey]

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

I'm no lawyer, but surely the drugs would still be fair game for seizure despite being inadmissible as evidence in a criminal proceeding? I just can't picture any reasonable argument for handing 27,000 lethal pills to a man with clear intent to distribute.

The Charter should protect his right to not be prosecuted based on an unwarranted search, but it was certainly not designed with the intent to allow significant harm to come to the public.

[guzzy]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Our charter rights are protected. Good.

There is always one of you.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by guzzy

There is always one of you.

I hope there's a lot more than one person who cares about the Charter Rights.

[Ped]

While on the surface this looks bad, I think the rights have to trump anything else, regardless of optics - just like many of us believe that the police having the right to test you without any suspicion for alcohol.


Charter rights cannot be applied just when we want them to be.

[FireGilbert]

Aren't drug dogs wrong around 75% of the time? The police should require far more evidence to search you than having a dog sit.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

Aren't drug dogs wrong around 75% of the time? The police should require far more evidence to search you than having a dog sit.

Maybe shake both paws?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

While I disagree that it allowing criminals to go free is the correct way to address to improper search and seizure, it's true that there could be other, harsher (and disproportionate) deterrents.

If evidence was admissible wouldn’t it lead to police debating if it was worth violating someone’s Charter rights because its in the “public good”

The point of having personal Rights is that they are not utilitarian.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

Aren't drug dogs wrong around 75% of the time? The police should require far more evidence to search you than having a dog sit.

Curious as to where you pulled that stat from? They’re actually quite accurate.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Curious as to where you pulled that stat from? They’re actually quite accurate.

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).

[FireGilbert]

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).

Yep. The dogs can tell if you have been "around" drugs but have no idea if you actually have drugs on you. The Police should require more evidence than this to search you.

I also suspect the dogs are being used as a way around searching "suspicious" looking people without proper evidence. It is pretty easy to make a dog sit with verbal or non-verbal commands.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

Yep. The dogs can tell if you have been "around" drugs but have no idea if you actually have drugs on you. The Police should require more evidence than this to search you.

I also suspect the dogs are being used as a way around searching "suspicious" looking people without proper evidence. It is pretty easy to make a dog sit with verbal or non-verbal commands.

Well, if the dog alerts on you, that’s the reasonable grounds for the search, which has been upheld in court.