Judge throws out a 27,000 fentanyl Pill bust

[CaptainCrunch]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1097542514116980738

https://twitter.com/user/status/1097542514116980738

ut in the case of Sandor Rigo, who was stopped on a Chilliwack highway in April 2017, the dog, named PSD Doods, was unable to sit down all the way. The police officer who made the stop said this was because a curb was in the way.

Really frustrating considering the national emergency around this killer drug, the fact that they found the pills and that the man confessed to being a mule.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Simply incredible

[4X4]

Why would the police bring out a drug sniffing dog for a speeding ticket? The guy is probably a known associate of an organization that has long enough tentacles to get a judge to find a technicality. Or maybe I watch too much TV, and the cops just checked for fun, and the judge truly has the overarching virtues of the criminal justice system at heart.

[rbochan]

Is this judge elected or appointed?

Either way...

[White Out 403]

Our charter rights are protected. Good.

[Svartsengi]

According to the article the man's rights were violated because a "Tail Wagging Expert" didn't believe the dog?. I have had dogs and cats for over 20 years does that make me a tail wagging expert too?. I have been to the zoo multiple times that must help. I will get some business cards and update my Linkedin profile.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by rbochan

Is this judge elected or appointed?

Either way...

We don't elect our judges in Canada.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Our charter rights are protected. Good.

Really, I would argue that this was a ruling of a judge based on a interpretation of a dogs tail. The person in every other way was treated correctly. The judge couldn't complain about any other aspect, just that the dog couldn't sit down or wasn't wagging his tail properly.


Congratulations Judge dog whisperer, you let a scumbag who smuggles a killer drug on the streets. Nice going.


Wonder if the judge ordered the poor mans drugs returned.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

The article says the dog showed no signs of finding the scent of drugs other than the office saying he kind of sat a bit.

No other signs.

Such as a wagging tail. The wagging tail doesn't appear to be the determining factor. The article doesn't say it was, but does sensationalize one aspect.

Now I'm no expert on drug sniffing dogs. You know who is?

The expert witness in the trial.

This story is 100% written to get a rise out of people.

If the police did their job properly, and didn't leave the search and seizure up to a quick, off camera partial signal, then this wouldn't be an issue.

The crime is immaterial.

We live in a society. A just society of laws.

The police who investigate crimes, and the attorneys who prosecute are held to a high standard of proof, as they should be.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Why would the police bring out a drug sniffing dog for a speeding ticket? The guy is probably a known associate of an organization that has long enough tentacles to get a judge to find a technicality. Or maybe I watch too much TV, and the cops just checked for fun, and the judge truly has the overarching virtues of the criminal justice system at heart.

Drug Pipeline recognition. Likely based on certain factors of the stop, the way the individual was acting prompted the officer to believe there maybe drugs in the vehicle.

As for the ruling It sounds like it came down to the judge not believe the K9 handler that the dog indicated a hit out of view of camera.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Out of curiosity, did anyone actual read the ruling? Or just the Global news report?

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Out of curiosity, did anyone actual read the ruling? Or just the Global news report?

I think you know the answer already.

[Isbrant]

Why does the case get thrown out instead of there being a separate punishment for getting the evidence "illegally"? I don't understand how this helps anyone but criminals.

In this instance, if there were no drugs, no punishment for the police but since there were drugs, the case gets thrown out. I see it as 2 separate offenses, running drugs and illegal seizure of the vehicle.

What am I missing?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Isbrant

Why does the case get thrown out instead of there being a separate punishment for getting the evidence "illegally"? I don't understand how this helps anyone but criminals.

In this instance, if there were no drugs, no punishment for the police but since there were drugs, the case gets thrown out. I see it as 2 separate offenses, running drugs and illegal seizure of the vehicle.

What am I missing?

Do you believe the state can show up to your house, come in search everything looking for drugs and when not finding any leave and do this without any kind of warrant?

What is protected by this ruling is innocent people’s right not be searched or detained without cause. The fact that this protection also helps the guilty is unfortunate.

One thing that concerns me here is that the absense of video footage showing the dog in odour was treated as factual despite the officers testimony that he was showing signs of it off of the camera. It seems like we are raising the burden of proof required.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

The article says the dog showed no signs of finding the scent of drugs other than the office saying he kind of sat a bit.

No other signs.

Such as a wagging tail. The wagging tail doesn't appear to be the determining factor. The article doesn't say it was, but does sensationalize one aspect.

Now I'm no expert on drug sniffing dogs. You know who is?

The expert witness in the trial.

This story is 100% written to get a rise out of people.

If the police did their job properly, and didn't leave the search and seizure up to a quick, off camera partial signal, then this wouldn't be an issue.

The crime is immaterial.

We live in a society. A just society of laws.

The police who investigate crimes, and the attorneys who prosecute are held to a high standard of proof, as they should be.

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.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

The police who investigate crimes, and the attorneys who prosecute are held to a high standard of proof, as they should be.

*chung chung*

[Isbrant]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you believe the state can show up to your house, come in search everything looking for drugs and when not finding any leave and do this without any kind of warrant?

What is protected by this ruling is innocent people’s right not be searched or detained without cause. The fact that this protection also helps the guilty is unfortunate.

No I don't believe that. If they did do that and didn't find anything, what is the punishment? If there isn't a punishment, why not?

What I was asking is, why does it make the evidence inadmissible as opposed to the police officer being charged with "illegal searching" and suffering the appropriate punishment.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Isbrant

No I don't believe that. If they did do that and didn't find anything, what is the punishment? If there isn't a punishment, why not?

What I was asking is, why does it make the evidence inadmissible as opposed to the police officer being charged with "illegal searching" and suffering the appropriate punishment.

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

[Travis Munroe]

So the use of a dash or body cam is really what this entire case is built around?
This scum is being let off transporting a drug which would have without a doubt killed multiple people & cost tax payers a giant sum of money through healthcare costs because a dashcam doesn't show a dog do what would have been expected of the dog?

If there is no dash cam, is this even a discussion or is the guy behind bars? I am all for cameras...as many as possible actually but it seems to backfire in this case.

Does the fact a dog was present and pulled out to sniff not mean they had some intel that this guy was transporting drugs? Does none of that hold up to a reason for the search? I can't recall the last time I was pulled over and saw a dog in the cop car let alone having the cop bring the dog out.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Isbrant

Why does the case get thrown out instead of there being a separate punishment for getting the evidence "illegally"? I don't understand how this helps anyone but criminals.

Well, protecting our Charter Rights helps more than just criminals. Allowing the police to break them at a whim would be terrible. Can't believe people are actually upset that a judge upheld Charter Rights.

If you don't think Section 8 is important, the right from unreasonable search and seizures, what other sections do you think the police and courts should get away with? Maybe get rid of Section 9 and let the court detain you without cause? Tortured for a confession despite Section 12?

We have the right to not be unreasonable searched. All the dog had to do was sit down to give them cause, it couldn't, they had no right to search the vehicle. Anything that happened after was a Charter violation. The judge had no choice, thankfully, to let the man go. We don't get to pick when the Charter is upheld, it goes for everyone - criminals included.

Don't like it? Move to someplace like China where they don't really care about their citizens' rights.