Judge throws out a 27,000 fentanyl Pill bust

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

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

Also, if you don't exclude evidence obtained by illegal means, does that include torturing suspects? How about denying them their lawyer and intimidating them into submission? Threatening their families? I mean, why stop at just invading peoples' homes without cause? There are lots of other ways to get evidence if the situation seems to warrant extreme measures.

Plus, you have to wonder if just as a matter of human nature, there's an inclination to go easy on the officer who commits an illegal search and turns out to be right, as opposed to the one who doesn't find anything. Which is just moral luck.

It's an unequivocally utilitarian approach - the greater good justifies doing bad things in some cases. We have it to some extent (section 1), but we only allow legislation that violates the Charter.

But we don't let police officers play that role, because they're police officers. That system is downright scary and primed for abuse. And hell, it's not like s.8 of the Charter requires Police to comply with some onerous burden in order to undertake a search. Asking for reasonable and probable grounds that an offence has been committed before barging into someone's house or sorting through their car's trunk is not asking for the moon.

[Fuzz]

The whole thing seems a bit odd...like, why does a traffic cop have a drug sniffing dog? And if he isn't a traffic cop, why is he pulling over some rando doing just over the speed limit? Surly k9 teams don't do this normally, do they? I suspect they were tracking this guy, perhaps tipped off by some other illegally gathered evidence so they couldn't get a proper warrant, but figured if they followed this guy long enough, they could pull him over for something silly and have the drug dog "find" what they know was there.



Just guessing though...maybe I've watched to much TV.

[Radio]

According to the story, that stretch of highway is a known drug corridor and he's not a "traffic cop", hence the sniffer dog.

He pulls the guy over for a traffic violation and then becomes suspicious when talking to him.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The whole thing seems a bit odd...like, why does a traffic cop have a drug sniffing dog? And if he isn't a traffic cop, why is he pulling over some rando doing just over the speed limit? Surly k9 teams don't do this normally, do they? I suspect they were tracking this guy, perhaps tipped off by some other illegally gathered evidence so they couldn't get a proper warrant, but figured if they followed this guy long enough, they could pull him over for something silly and have the drug dog "find" what they know was there.



Just guessing though...maybe I've watched to much TV.

In my mind these guys get tipped off and busted... While other vehicles with significantly more drugs get by. The elusive sacrificial lamb... Maybe I watch too much TV too.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Weitz

In my mind these guys get tipped off and busted... While other vehicles with significantly more drugs get by. The elusive sacrificial lamb... Maybe I watch too much TV too.

If indeed this is a common practice, I don't think the guy with 27,000 pills is the sacrificial lamb.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The whole thing seems a bit odd...like, why does a traffic cop have a drug sniffing dog? And if he isn't a traffic cop, why is he pulling over some rando doing just over the speed limit? Surly k9 teams don't do this normally, do they? I suspect they were tracking this guy, perhaps tipped off by some other illegally gathered evidence so they couldn't get a proper warrant, but figured if they followed this guy long enough, they could pull him over for something silly and have the drug dog "find" what they know was there.



Just guessing though...maybe I've watched to much TV.

The story I saw on the news said this stretch of highway is a busy trafficking route (no idea if true or not).

It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that a K9 team is sent to patrol this stretch of road.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The whole thing seems a bit odd...like, why does a traffic cop have a drug sniffing dog? And if he isn't a traffic cop, why is he pulling over some rando doing just over the speed limit? Surly k9 teams don't do this normally, do they? I suspect they were tracking this guy, perhaps tipped off by some other illegally gathered evidence so they couldn't get a proper warrant, but figured if they followed this guy long enough, they could pull him over for something silly and have the drug dog "find" what they know was there.



Just guessing though...maybe I've watched to much TV.

They have interdiction teams on major highways. That is what that police officer was doing.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

They have interdiction teams on major highways. That is what that police officer was doing.

What I'm wondering is why he was suspicious though? Sure, he was speeding a little, but everyone does. You can't pull everyone over doing 14km over for a sniffing. And he is out with the dog before he even talks to the guy about speeding. Which is why I'm wondering if they already suspected this guy.



I'll also never understand why drug mules break basic traffic laws.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'll also never understand why drug mules break basic traffic laws.

It would be super suspicious to drive the speed limit.

[Fuzz]

So drive 5 over. 14 over? I don't even do that and I don't drive vehicles full of drugs.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by SebC

It would be super suspicious to drive the speed limit.

Anything greater than 10% over the speed limit is suspicious

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Also, if you don't exclude evidence obtained by illegal means, does that include torturing suspects? How about denying them their lawyer and intimidating them into submission? Threatening their families? I mean, why stop at just invading peoples' homes without cause? There are lots of other ways to get evidence if the situation seems to warrant extreme measures.

You are comparing means of gaining evidence that are frequently unreliable and create false confessions with looking into something where a test came back ambiguous. If you need a smoking gun to do an investigation, is it even worth calling it an investigation at that point?

What's to stop someone from deciding it's worth breaking the law? In my mind, if the punishments are fair, then there will be situations where people make that judgement. A society with absolute adherence to law would likely be rather draconian. And a vigilante cop might be particularly motivated to break the law now in this situation because the law has created a really stupid outcome.

Unless the cop has a history of fishing, I'd argue that him being correct is an indication that he made a good read of the situation (i.e. suspect was legitimately suspicious), rather than got lucky.

[Lubicon]

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?

Some are being retired, some are going to other law enforcement agencies where MJ is still illegal (Customs for example, or American police forces). They are not considered reliable now for 'regular' police work as there is no way to prove what drug they alerted on and thus a search could be illegal.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Also, if you don't exclude evidence obtained by illegal means, does that include torturing suspects? How about denying them their lawyer and intimidating them into submission? Threatening their families? I mean, why stop at just invading peoples' homes without cause? There are lots of other ways to get evidence if the situation seems to warrant extreme measures.

Plus, you have to wonder if just as a matter of human nature, there's an inclination to go easy on the officer who commits an illegal search and turns out to be right, as opposed to the one who doesn't find anything. Which is just moral luck.

It's an unequivocally utilitarian approach - the greater good justifies doing bad things in some cases. We have it to some extent (section 1), but we only allow legislation that violates the Charter.

But we don't let police officers play that role, because they're police officers. That system is downright scary and primed for abuse. And hell, it's not like s.8 of the Charter requires Police to comply with some onerous burden in order to undertake a search. Asking for reasonable and probable grounds that an offence has been committed before barging into someone's house or sorting through their car's trunk is not asking for the moon.

A confession is not evidence, so first of all, of course you can throw out a confession given under stress.

Second, you know which industrialized country has a huge problem with police forcing confessions with various threats? The US. Whicy has the same system as you do. They also have a major issue with the police outright planting evidence.

You know which countries don't have that problem? None of the European countries that have our system.

You keep claiming that we "let" the police do something for utilitarian reasons, but it's actually the exact opposite.

You seemed to miss out on the part where we take policemen to court for gaining evidence illegally. That's a career ender, and the consequences don't even necessarily stop there.

You don't do anything to the individual police. If they gather illegal evidence in an illegal way, all that's done is the evidence gets thrown out, and maybe taxpayers fork out some money to a possible criminal. Your system actively encourages the police to try this stuff, because there isn't individual responsibility.

That's why cases like these where the police have broken the law while gathering evidence are common in common in common law countries such as yours, and extremely rare in civil law countries such a ours.

(We have the exact same problems with wiretapping though, and in general it's not like our system is perfect. It's just better that yours in this one way.)

I mean, that's what "evidence/case thrown out over a technicality" means : someone I the law enforcement broke the law. Your system encourages it, because there's little individual responsibility. Our system very strongly discourages it because even if the police person does find evidence, proving them right, they still go to court over it and it's again a likely career ender.

And really nobody thinks it makes sense to sacrifice your career for one bad guy.

[Itse]

Also, your system creates a massive incentive to actively hide technical mistakes that have happened during the legal process. Because making them public creates a risk that a criminal walks.

Our system doesn't have that issue. A minor technicality is just that, a minor technicality. You make a correction, the officer responsible gets a talking to. If it's no if deal, it really isn't a big deal.

...
I'm honestly kind of amazed that someone actually defends yous dumb system.

I mean, this case is a prime example of everything that's wrong with it.

You have a police officer knowingly committing an illegal search getting apparently no punishment. You have a known criminal going free with no punishment. That's two major crimes going unpunished, and a lot of wasted taxpayer money, and the public blames the judge who is really just following the law...

How does someone look at this and think "yeah I'm sure this is the best possible system"?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

A confession is not evidence, so first of all, of course you can throw out a confession given under stress.

Yes it is... it's obviously evidence. What the heck?

Second, you know which industrialized country has a huge problem with police forcing confessions with various threats? The US. Whicy has the same system as you do.

No they don't. You apparently know very little about the Canadian and US legal system. Moreover, there aren't a lot of those instances in Canada, which indicates to me that the issue might be with the US police forces themselves rather than the constitution. I mean, what an insane way to attribute causation.

You seemed to miss out on the part where we take policemen to court for gaining evidence illegally. That's a career ender, and the consequences don't even necessarily stop there.

No, I didn't. If it's really the end of a person's career, that might be an effective deterrent, but I sort of doubt it, given the way police forces operate. And look at this case - the officer clearly failed to establish reasonable cause to search the vehicle, so he illegally obtained evidence, but did he really do anything terribly egregious? You're telling me that he would have been prosecuted and had his career ended? I doubt it.

You don't do anything to the individual police. If they gather illegal evidence in an illegal way, all that's done is the evidence gets thrown out, and maybe taxpayers fork out some money to a possible criminal. Your system actively encourages the police to try this stuff, because there isn't individual responsibility.

Except they've just failed to do their job in a manner that has led to a suspect who otherwise might have been convicted getting to walk. If I #### up that royally at my job, I get fired. Similar performance reviews apply to the police involved. And what on Earth are you talking about, taxpayers forking out money to a criminal? You're just making things up now.

That's why cases like these where the police have broken the law while gathering evidence are common in common in common law countries such as yours, and extremely rare in civil law countries such a ours.

That, to me, simply suggests that there are likely abuses that aren't being handled by the Courts, which only makes intuitive sense given the stakes at play. There would naturally be hesitation to pursue marginal cases, which erodes constitutional protections.

I don't really think you know a whole ton about either legal system, based on what I'm reading here.

EDIT: This actually says everything that's necessary about where you've gone off track:

Our system doesn't have that issue. A minor technicality is just that, a minor technicality. You make a correction, the officer responsible gets a talking to. If it's no if deal, it really isn't a big deal.

The whole point of constitutional rights is that there's no "minor" violation of them. They're regarded as so important that every violation is to be treated with the utmost seriousness. State actors can't encroach on rights in small ways and simply have those encroachments shrugged off. The rights that are enshrined in the constitution are there because they're so crucially important. This is precisely the sort of erosion I was talking about.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Itse

Also, your system creates a massive incentive to actively hide technical mistakes that have happened during the legal process. Because making them public creates a risk that a criminal walks.

Our system doesn't have that issue. A minor technicality is just that, a minor technicality. You make a correction, the officer responsible gets a talking to. If it's no if deal, it really isn't a big deal.

...
I'm honestly kind of amazed that someone actually defends yous dumb system.

I mean, this case is a prime example of everything that's wrong with it.

You have a police officer knowingly committing an illegal search getting apparently no punishment. You have a known criminal going free with no punishment. That's two major crimes going unpunished, and a lot of wasted taxpayer money, and the public blames the judge who is really just following the law...

How does someone look at this and think "yeah I'm sure this is the best possible system"?

You are looking at the worst possible outcome. Our system expects and accepts what you are describing to protect you the innocent person from being unlawfully searches and detained when you visit Calgary on vacation. We accept that 90% of the time that this works against us but put the paramouncy of individual rights over utilitarian rights. Your calling it Dumb downplays about 300 years of philosophical debate.

I do think public documented consequences for the officer is a reasonable additional deterrent. But to use the fruit of the poison tree incentivizes the behaviour.

Also Finland permits evidence obtained by torture
https://sites.uclouvain.be/cridho/do...nion3-2003.pdf

Page 13 — it does state it’s unreliable and not proof however it is permitted to be used.

Also only 7 of 17 EU states per the above permit the use of illegally evidence. So plenty of countries place individual rights over utilitarian good.

[Itse]

Here are the facts:
We don't have a problem with this. We neither get stupid situations where obvious criminals walk free like that, nor do we have major problems with illegal searches or police misconduct regarding civil rights. (We have problems, but every place has their problems.)

You have criminals walking free. And considering that news of criminals walking free because of illegal searches aren't that rare, it doesn't seem to actually do any better in protecting people from illegal searches. It might not be worse, but it certainly doesn't do any better.

You can scream constitutional rights and history of philosophy all you want.

The facts are still that your system has a problem ours doesn't, and our solution hasn't done anything to create the problems you claim it would.

Also, US is relevant because they have a comparable system. Their failures show that the your system is not what actually protects citizens rights in Canada, its the relative high quality of your legal system in general.

You could change the law to something less dumb and it would be just fine.

But obviously it's not going to happen, so that's the end of this debate for me.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I dunno, having the dog start over sniffing the car seems reasonable and not dumb to me. More so than allowing a tortured confession, or shoddy police work.

I'll take the occasional guilty person going free than allowing innocent people be convicted because it would be stupid not to.

[Itse]

Also, as someone who's did quite well in both practical and theoretical philosophy in the university, I'm absolutely comfortable calling a lot of conclusions drawn from hundreds of years of philophical debate just dumb.

It's not that I couldn't uphold the pretense of sophisticated argumentation. It's that I don't care for it, especially on a hockey forum.