Another Legal Question

wum · #1 (**permalink**) May 02, 05

Some cowboy police officers on the weekend raided a home and took with them, for I presume "evidence," money, jewelry, and video games.

1) do they have any grounds to do so? and 2) is that considered abusive since they could just as easily have knocked on the door and served a proper warrant?

mapleleaf4ever · #2 (**permalink**) May 02, 05

KNOCK KNOCK MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

If was ever to join the Police I'd so want that role.

wum · #3 (**permalink**) May 02, 05

^ the number one cause of death among SWAT officers is being shot by their own

mapleleaf4ever · #4 (**permalink**) May 02, 05

I hear the same about the US Army... OH WAIT THEY JUST BOMB CANADIANS INSTEAD! *rolls eyes*

Kinda ironic that you mention that... my Dad's friend was on the ERT for the Calgary Police and he has a scar on his arm from getting shot with a blank round during a House Clearing Exercise.

craz_e_blossom · #5 (**permalink**) May 02, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by wum

Some cowboy police officers on the weekend raided a home and took with them, for I presume "evidence," money, jewelry, and video games.

1) do they have any grounds to do so? and 2) is that considered abusive since they could just as easily have knocked on the door and served a proper warrant?

I don't see how it is considered abusive but more so violating a law that they didn't have a warrant...If they had suspisions they would legaly need a warrant to search the premisses...Even if they had knocked on the door they would need something in writting that says they are allowed to do a full search...

wum · #6 (**permalink**) May 02, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by craz_e_blossom

I don't see how it is considered abusive but more so violating a law that they didn't have a warrant...If they had suspisions they would legaly need a warrant to search the premisses...Even if they had knocked on the door they would need something in writting that says they are allowed to do a full search...

well... let's just say they were justified in searching the place.

I'm just saying was the whole SWAT thing neccessary? I mean in which case do they just knock on your door politely versus when they hogtie you and go through all your stuff.

As well, they sort've went on a fishing expedition and took everything they wanted, things not even pertinent to the crime in question, like money and jewelry, which i thought was pretty bogus.

mapleleaf4ever · #7 (**permalink**) May 02, 05

Ah! But could it be related as proceeds of Crime? In that case they are well justified. Also if there is even suspicion that the occupants could be hazardous or armed they aren't going to send a couple constables with some pea-shooters.

wum · #8 (**permalink**) May 02, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

Ah! But could it be related as proceeds of Crime? In that case they are well justified. Also if there is even suspicion that the occupants could be hazardous or armed they aren't going to send a couple constables with some pea-shooters.

Without getting too specific, someone had threatened a politician, so really the contents of the safe, the video games, and all that shit would have no significance to the investigation.

I'm reminded of that of movie Training Day.

"King Koooong, ain't go nuffin' on me!!"

ebbomega · #9 (**permalink**) May 02, 05

They're allowed to get raid warrants or something like that, I think... Where they just bust in, confiscate a bunch of stuff, then sit on it for evidence.

They're mostly just warning tactics more than anything.... telling them "We're watching you do this illegal stuff, you've blipped on our radar" in hopes to make them stop. Basically means they don't really have enough evidence to try you (in a very general term) but enough to incriminate.

At any rate, they're still cops and still need to prove that they had a reason to do the raid in court. It _may_ all be inadmissable, in which case the raid was as much for confirming their own suspicions if anything.

I'd recommend your friend stop doing whatever they were doing that was illegal.

esoter1c · #10 (**permalink**) May 03, 05

Are You Questioning The Nwo Puppets Authority ?!

lou_belle · #11 (**permalink**) May 03, 05

The police have to make the biggest scene possible to let everyone in the neighborhood know that they are protecting them and doing something to keep their families safe from criminals.
The whole "swat team" thing is trying to make themselves appear a force to be reckoned with...kinda like the FBI...but in reality one guy can take out the whole damn brigade.
They use it as a scare tactic as well to pass on a message that it doesn't pay to be involved with crime...in fact, it's humiliating. So although it feels unnecessary, there are reasons for them to be so overpowering.

Taking ridiculous evidence is just another extreme way of humiliating you...allowing the accused to feel vulnerable and powerless because it's legal for them to take evidence of any kind. It's all mind games.

wum · #12 (**permalink**) May 03, 05

^ that sounds like the pigs alright

craz_e_blossom · #13 (**permalink**) May 03, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by wum

well... let's just say they were justified in searching the place.

I'm just saying was the whole SWAT thing neccessary? I mean in which case do they just knock on your door politely versus when they hogtie you and go through all your stuff.

As well, they sort've went on a fishing expedition and took everything they wanted, things not even pertinent to the crime in question, like money and jewelry, which i thought was pretty bogus.

I believe sending in a swat team would be necessary if they had suspician that the people were armed...But they still would need a legal search warrant to even proceed to enter the premisses.

But taking video games and some money and jewlery makes this whole thing look like a load of crap...This stuff is no good for evidence so what was the point in them taking it...I find that cops just tend to fuckin think to highly of themselves...They think they can fuckin walts right into someones home without having papers...Can you say power trip much...

For instance awhile back my step dad apparently did a hit and run...Yet there was no damage on his vehicle...You'd think that there would be another cars paint scrapped off on to the side of his truck...But there was nothing there....Cops showed up at my door and wanted to speak to him at the time but he was sleeping so I asked if they could come back later...They said that it was important and they needed to talk to them right now and I once again repeated that he was sleeping and began to close the door...What really ticked me off is one of the cops decided to wedge his fuckin toe in the door so I couldn't close the door...I believe they had no right to even do this...With that they fuckin barged into my house and stomped up the stairs to get my step dad...As I was screaming for them to get the fuck out of my house...They fuckin didn't even have the courtesy to let him put on his damn shoes before they dragged him out the front door and threw him into the cop car...They didn't have a warrant or anything...

Fuckin power tripping assholes

I rest my case...

wum · #14 (**permalink**) May 03, 05

woah, you guys should've got a lawyer

craz_e_blossom · #15 (**permalink**) May 03, 05

yah but in general who really wants to sit around and wait years to have the issue solved...

crookedking · #16 (**permalink**) May 03, 05

if i was a cop i'd totally be corrupt.

i'd be like vic on "the shield". LET'S ROB US A MONEY TRAIN!

Akeel · #17 (**permalink**) May 04, 05

"just cause" is all thats really needed for a search to take place.

sounds like whoevers house it was threatened a politician. If your "uttering threats" (section 264.1 of the CCC) that could constitute just cause (pretty much anything can)

487.11 A peace officer, or a public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, may, in the course of his or her duties, exercise any of the powers described in subsection 487(1) or 492.1(1) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain a warrant.

(yes i went to school for this)

oh and for the seizure of property....

(2) Every peace officer, and every public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, who is lawfully present in a place pursuant to a warrant or otherwise in the execution of duties may, without a warrant, seize any thing that the officer believes on reasonable grounds

(a) has been obtained by the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament;

(b) has been used in the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament; or

(c) will afford evidence in respect of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament.

Akeel · #18 (**permalink**) May 04, 05

here's the act you use for getting your stuff back.

this will probably take a long time btw - but if no one has been charged it should be quicker.

489.1 (1) Subject to this or any other Act of Parliament, where a peace officer has seized anything under a warrant issued under this Act or under section 487.11 or 489 or otherwise in the execution of duties under this or any other Act of Parliament, the peace officer shall, as soon as is practicable,

(a) where the peace officer is satisfied,

(i) that there is no dispute as to who is lawfully entitled to possession of the thing seized, and

(ii) that the continued detention of the thing seized is not required for the purposes of any investigation or a preliminary inquiry, trial or other proceeding,

return the thing seized, on being issued a receipt therefor, to the person lawfully entitled to its possession and report to the justice who issued the warrant or some other justice for the same territorial division or, if no warrant was issued, a justice having jurisdiction in respect of the matter, that he has done so; or

(b) where the peace officer is not satisfied as described in subparagraphs (a)(i) and (ii),

(i) bring the thing seized before the justice referred to in paragraph (a), or

(ii) report to the justice that he has seized the thing and is detaining it or causing it to be detained

to be dealt with by the justice in accordance with subsection 490(1).

Akeel · #19 (**permalink**) May 05, 05

^
its all very subjective...on top of that, you have to consider who's word a judge is going to take.

while our legal system is not great, its certainly better then some places.

for checks and balances there are external committees and boards of review and the judicial system.

i remember one case where a guy got arrested right from his door step for uttering threats...the cop then went inside to "secure the residence" and just happened to find a grow op :|

since the officer didnt have to go all the way inside and search the house to secure the residence the case was thrown out.

what he should have done is called in for a telewarrant because of the strong smell of the homegrown.