|
|
|
I occasionally watch the "Audit the Audit" Youtube channel because they do exactly that; analyze an audit of police and discuss the legalities involved. Be advised that there are actually locations in which you can be arrested for filming or taking pictures. They are typically military installations and infrastructure (dams, power plants, etc.).
In Canada, yes. Police can stop you for no purpose other than to verify that you are, in fact, licensed to operate a vehicle. I have been stopped for this on several occasions. My "in or out of the vehicle" comment is with respect to the fact that police can stop you on the street and ask your identity, without it involving a traffic stop. Unless case law on this has recently changed, of course.
The carding thing got a huge legal smackdown a few years ago. In practice, random pedestrian stops seem to have ended. If they are investigating an actual crime and have a suspect description, they still grab pedestrians and ask for identity.
"Carding" got hit for the racial aspect involved. It was easily demonstrable that people of certain racial groups were stopped out of proportion with their percentage of the population. Without that aspect it's still possible.
Yes, but as the brass couldn't control the racial aspect, afaik, TPS said no more entirely. If they were forbidden from stopping visible minorities and only stopped non-visible minorities (eg white people in scarboro), they would get dragged back to court and lose again. Now, if someone calls in a robbery and the suspect is skin colour X and wearing black, cops will hit up all of those that they spot.
Yes, but that's a policy issue and not one based in law, if you get my meaning.
You are correct. At some point in the last decade or so this changed.
Pretty sure even if they are investigating you aren’t obligated to provide that info. Maybe if detained.
Aren't the police allowed to lie? "We're investigating a break in around the corner."
How would you know since they are allowed to lie
They can (and do) demand any time they wish, whether you have to comply is what matters.
That's a big part of the problem. If you are a potential witness they need to know how to get a hold of you. If there is a possibility of you being charged the less said the better.
Hmmmm I've always wondered if this was somewhat of a grey area. They would need a warrant to actually view the evidence (assuming you didn't just turn it over willingly), does scope of said warrant include before and after footage of said event?
And the warrant would describe what they're looking for and why, anything else they find would be excluded.
I think that happened last year. Trying to remember the case. Something about corruption and one police force (county?) raiding the headquarters of another police force (city?).
www.krqe.com
www.cp24.com
I thought the police could seize to prevent destruction but not view without a warrant. We get so much cross border law quotes that may not be correct.
|
|
|
|
|