Searched & arrested

[turbodish]

This thread is so ridiculous, and SO full of non-factual information. Anyone who thinks that an officer can search your car if you are not wearing a seat-belt, or actually searches and impounds your car until a trial (upwards of a year), without SERIOUS repercussions (one being in-admissible evidence), is a fool. GO spend a few days (or years like I have) in the Criminal Justice System and you will agree with me. Its a shame how these threads go off in different directions then intended.

Alberta's provincial traffic laws are somewhat similar than Ontario's. There a driver can be arrested for careless driving and have their person and vehicle searched as well, though Alberta law places some limitations on the extent of vehicle search permitted that do not exist ion Ontario law. Check this case out where an Alberta driver's person and vehicle was searched after he was arrested for careless driving, and where a court deemed that the extent of the vehicle search was not supported by provincial law. The evidence obtained was still deemed admissible. http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2007/2007abqb687/2007abqb687.pdf

 

[strictlye]

like I said before.........the Canadian law system isn't as stupid as the US law system. If you are caught with an illegal substance that was found without a warrant, it doesn't mean that you never had the illegal substance so they can still use it against you. In the US, they simply through it out of court. "I'm sorry they didn't get the warrant in time to search and discover your meth lab, so you're free to go".

I'm not a lawyer but I did take Canadian Law in College. As a young enthic man in Toronto, you have to know your rights. I couldn't believe the amount of things that cops where doing that weren't legal when I studied law. They mostly intemidate you into getting their way so I understand what the OP was going through. They did that to me all the time.

"Can I search you"
"No"
"Why not?, do you have anything to hide?"
"no"
"they why do you know want me to search you? can you see your ID please"
"why?"
"because you fit the description of someone who we are looking for, so I am going to search you because I have just cause because you look like someone we are looking for and if I find anything on you will I will charge you because you were not honest with me"

 

[koFFey]

No I wasn't impaired in any way. I wouldn't drink/smoke and ride.

I had just picked it up not long prior to getting stopped, it was only 2grams but had a strong smell to it.

Then why have it with you in the first place IF you just got it, wouldn't you have got more then a gram? Could have stashed it in the bike. Hard to smell weed over gas/oil/heat/exhaust.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Then why have it with you in the first place IF you just got it, wouldn't you have got more then a gram? Could have stashed it in the bike. Hard to smell weed over gas/oil/heat/exhaust.

A tip from my younger, unruly days: A couple of freezer bags with zippers do wonders in blocking strong odors.. Place the smelly item into one bag, squeeze all the air out as you zip it up, and put the whole shabang into the other bag. Smells get gone

 

[strictlye]

tsk tsk, look at you give advice on how to store drugs. lol

 

[FiReSTaRT]

tsk tsk, look at you give advice on how to store drugs. lol

My advice is more along the lines of improving the air quality in a vehicle when transporting any "smelly items" (like Camembert cheese).. I never made it drug-specific and it should not be construed that I advocate or assist any illegal activities as defined by the Criminal Code of Harperland

 

[Buddhacide]

Wow - hyperbole much? The UK is one of the top 10 tourist destinations worldwide, and for many good reasons. You don't want to go there, fine, but millions do.

Just to play Devils Advocate here, in London it is routine for police to station themselves outside of tube stations with drug dogs and bust people coming off the tube for possession. Thats pretty big brother if you ask me.

 

[Prince-ALI]

Then why have it with you in the first place IF you just got it, wouldn't you have got more then a gram? Could have stashed it in the bike. Hard to smell weed over gas/oil/heat/exhaust.

Lol, I'm not a heavy pot smoker. $20 worth is enough to get me random small joints here and there to help me sleep when I really need to the odd night!


Ps. Since this thread won't die, I may as well add I contacted my insurance broker anonymously and explained my situation. He said if I'om convicted for careless driving, no matter how old I am or how long I've been insured or what record I have, State Farm will automatically cancel my policy. So I will be hoping to get this ticket lowered to a simple speeding ticket (what it really should have been to begin with!).

 

[promac]

So I will be hoping to get this ticket lowered to a simple speeding ticket (what it really should have been to begin with!).

I don't see why the prosecutor wouldn't agree to improper passing. In provincial court, the burden of proof is much more difficult and the judge doesn't really want to hear such trivial charges in the first place. It really depends on the circumstances as well. It's much easier for all involved if you plea down to a lesser charge. If I were you, I'd hire a decent criminal lawyer.

As far as the search goes, the admissibility of evidence really depends on the circumstances. If you consented to the search, unless you can somehow prove duress in consent such as a targeted minority or something, all you can really hope for is the mercy of the court - see if you can plea it down to something else or have it thrown out.

I don't believe a careless driving charge in itself is justification for search - it really depends on the circumstances. In my younger years, I was charged with careless driving on two separate occasions - one was thrown out and the other was pled down to following too close. No search was conducted in either case. If the timeline of events goes something like this - you're pulled over, officer starts making the standard enquiries and it eventually progresses to a request to search and you refuse, then he places you under arrest for careless driving to circumvent a proper warrant, I'd imagine that wouldn't hold up in court - it's a fishing expedition. On the other hand, if you're placed under arrest at first contact, and there is justification for doing so, then that might hold up in court.

 

[Power_Man]

Yep I'm a criminal because I had little weed enough to get me a couple joints here and there to help me sleep since I have insomnia. But no, of course I deserve to have a mark on my clean record as a warning for my future employers and boarder agents since if convicted I'm now deemed a liability and a threat (Y). Whoopty fkn doo.

Was that really worth it? Was I killing and raping people? (Something that seems to happen occasionally in the neighbourhood I got stopped in). No, this is not worth having the "justice system" and the cops possibly ****ing up my future .

Never been pulled over nor arrested before, how the hell was I supposed to know what to say or do while I'm mentally all over the map? He went to search me. Why would I lie when I can smell it, and he can smell it, and hes about to find it on me regardless? I was ****ed the minute I was pulled over. They can't search me unless they have reasonable suspicion, and I wasn't sure if being able to smell it or not was reasonable enough (since they mentioned getting a "wiff" of something) so I pulled the honesty card. I don't call that being "dumb".

They might also drop your "weed" charge if you have a clean record, and maybe sign up for "help"...
From my personal experience with a Drug charge on my record (Mushrooms), it has not affect me in any real bad way.

Was able to get a Passport real easy, and after that I went to Cuba last year.
As far as jobs, it has never affected being hired any where.

Only place it has effected me is, going to the states. they are the only ones that care. AND EVEN THEN, from what i have been told, is UNLESS you tell them that you have a record, OR they detain you at the crossing, they won't know about it (might be wrong, but from a few sources this is what i have heard).

As the others have said you should be able to get the Ticket beat.

 

[promac]

Here's something scary that's happened south of the border - at least they have civil remedies:

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.
The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.
"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."
Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.
But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."
This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.
On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Ahhhh the land of the free.. There's a reason why I avoid going there without a good reason. On a good note, at least they aren't as bad as the British.

 

[LiNK666]

A tip from my younger, unruly days: A couple of freezer bags with zippers do wonders in blocking strong odors.. Place the smelly item into one bag, squeeze all the air out as you zip it up, and put the whole shabang into the other bag. Smells get gone

Also old milk bags. You smell of BO, but atleast it's better than pot