REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

El Bastardo · 05-06-2009, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stutterr

First off Five-Oh, if I was pulled over for a traffic violation, and show no signs of intoxication or any other visable violations or weapons, does the officer have the rights to search myself, or my vehicle. I think not. I should be issued a ticket and be on my way. But many people here think that if the officer gets a funny feeling or maybe wants to just be a dick and search my vehicle, I should let him. Why should I allow my time to be wasted and my rights be violated just because a cop has a hunch?

A police officer's "Probable Cause" isn't always immediately apparent to you.
You can afford him the courtesy of taking a peek thru your car if its on the level as a courtesy just so everyone can get on with their life.

It may make you feel a little violated, it may make you late for work, but if you have nothing to hide I'm sure your boss at the Ninja Bear Zoo will understand if you show up a few mins late because of a police interaction.

stutterr · 05-06-2009, 07:14 PM

You are correct, but I would hope that someone would not allow such a thing just to comply. Even if I have nothing to hide, its the simple fact that I have the right to refuse the search, and we should willingly be able to do so. I don't see how this is so hard to grasp. You are trying to get me to agree that I should consent to having my privacy violated, and allow an unnecessary and uncalled for search.

Regardless since when did a hunch allow to a search or voilation of privacy? "Probably cause" sure would be an easy answer to anything, but try holding it to someone in court. Easy to call, hard to prove when there is no visable violation. Sure lets just let police walk all over our rights and freedoms. There is nothing wrong with following the law.

eFx[A2C] · 05-06-2009, 11:12 PM

There is nothing wrong with that. But if you were following the law why would you get pulled over ??

BinsentoW · 05-07-2009, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stutterr

But many people here think that if the officer gets a funny feeling or maybe wants to just be a dick and search my vehicle, I should let him. Why should I allow my time to be wasted and my rights be violated just because a cop has a hunch?

It would probably take much longer if the cop needed to get a warrant because you wouldn't let him search your trunk.

stutterr · 05-07-2009, 08:14 AM

good point, but sometimes a bulb can be burnt out, or a random vehicle check. Cops have an unending list of reasons to pull anyone over. You do not have to break the law to be pulled over.

nipples · 05-07-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stutterr

Who gives dam if it raises alarm bells. Just because I wont bend over and take it up the *** like most people on here, doesn't make me the bad guy. I am innocent until proven guilty. Unfortauntely most officers stereotype and will catorgize you in the first few seconds of seeing you.

First off Five-Oh, if I was pulled over for a traffic violation, and show no signs of intoxication or any other visable violations or weapons, does the officer have the rights to search myself, or my vehicle. I think not. I should be issued a ticket and be on my way. But many people here think that if the officer gets a funny feeling or maybe wants to just be a dick and search my vehicle, I should let him. Why should I allow my time to be wasted and my rights be violated just because a cop has a hunch?

What are you refering to? Did you even read the last page?

actually, if you were, let's say, speeding...the officer pulls u over. you're not drunk, he doesnt see any weapons, etc but he feels you may be concealing something in the trunk or elsewhere in the car, he could argue probale grounds to search.

What makes this different from the MADD counter-attack is that you actually broke the law by speeding. A person driving down no.3 road or granville st. at the same time a road-check is occurring did not (unless drunk/driving a stolen car/no papers/VI req'd) break ANY laws and should therefore not be detained, and definitely not searched.

That is the difference. Speeding = you breaking the law. you're now at their mercy.
Roadstop = you on your merry way, unless you really did something stupid like murdering someone and wearing a bloody shirt at the roadstop. then you're screwwwwwwwwed. [edit] especially if ya look like the crazy murdering type too haha

stutterr · 05-07-2009, 06:54 PM

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks for the pointless comment!

nipples · 05-07-2009, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stutterr

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks for the pointless comment!

you're telling me that after you violated the law, after the police have nailed you for it, he is forbidden from searching you or your vehicle despite his suspicions? That doing so would be an illegal search?

Spartacus · 05-08-2009, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nipples

you're telling me that after you violated the law, after the police have nailed you for it, he is forbidden from searching you or your vehicle despite his suspicions? That doing so would be an illegal search?

They can't, not unless it was a serious offense for him to be booked.

Speeding isn't a huge offense for the officer to search vehicle unless he has consent from the driver.

nipples · 05-08-2009, 03:12 AM

yeah that's about right. i was mistaken.

stutterr · 05-09-2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nipples

yeah that's about right. i was mistaken.

Its hilarious how people offer up their opinion as fact.

sho_bc · 05-09-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stutterr

Its hilarious how people offer up their opinion as fact.

Says the pot to the kettle.

ctsport · 05-09-2009, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRS

Why would you carry a samurai sword or bear mace with you on your daily ride?

He's from Surrey, it makes perfect sense.

Soundy · 05-10-2009, 07:47 AM

:IDL

sebberry · 05-10-2009, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-Oh

Yes, in the word of the law it is legal to do this, but it is stupid to do this. If we are getting a call for this I would guarantee the call would be "there is a guy on the street with a gun" and not "there is a guy walking down the street with a non-restricted firearm with a trigger lock and all of the appropriate documentation." Because of the information we receive, I would be treating it as a live firearm and would be detaining him at gunpoint for public safety and my safety and determining the legalities of it after he is in handcuffs and I have ensured the weapon is secure.

After it was determined to be secure then I would have some decisions to make. I would most likely seize the firearm just in public interest as it is not normal to carry a gun down the street and if he would like it back, he could go through the proper channels to get it back. I'm sure a bunch of you are going to say that I am over-stepping my boundaries by seizing the firearm, but I would rather over-step my boundaries than see the headline in the paper the next day, "Man goes on shooting spree after Mountie sees him walking down the street carrying a gun!"

And to Stutter, if you are already pulled over for whatever reason the officer isn't "bending the rules" to charge you. You were obviously pulled over for committing a driving offence and you just made his decision regarding a ticket or a warning a lot easier. It is hard to drive a single block without seeing numerous driving offences, there are enough real ones that we don't need to make up fake ones.

You don't see anything wrong with seizing someone's property that they are in lawful possession of and are transporting it in accordance with the law? No crime is being committed but you are pretty much unofficially accusing him of one by making him pick up his gun at the police station.

That's like taking someone's car away because it *could* be used in a crime at a later date.

That's the problem with Canada's goofy gun control laws. Meanwhile while you’re tagging his gun and putting it in the trunk of your car, there's a guy with a loaded 9mm stuffed down his pants a block away waiting for you to finish confiscating a lawfully posessed item so he can hold up a jewellery store.

stutterr · 05-15-2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sho_bc

Says the pot to the kettle.

ha..yea because I am right and hes wrong? Sorry bud!! I know what I am talking about!

GLOW · 05-16-2009, 07:00 AM

are collapsable battons legal? i always see those for sale at night market, but don't see why anyone would buy one, b/c you pretty much have to conceal it strapped to your leg or something to carry one, which i would assume is illegal b/c it's a hidden weapon?

sebberry · 05-16-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLOW

are collapsable battons legal? i always see those for sale at night market, but don't see why anyone would buy one, b/c you pretty much have to conceal it strapped to your leg or something to carry one, which i would assume is illegal b/c it's a hidden weapon?

No they're not legal.

teamsta · 05-16-2009, 10:14 PM

This thread is painful. Who knew RS had so many misinformed, "wanna be" lawyers?

zulutango · 05-17-2009, 07:13 AM

I agree...I took 6 months of it at Depot and got great marks, I also took 2 years of law courses in University and got great marks there as well. yet I have difficulty in understanding all the nuances...even after almost 3 decades of using it daily. I see Lawyers who complete the whole law school process and have difficulty in getting it right at times. It has been interesting to see that some folks here with a few grade 11 law classes or a google button for law answers, are able to interpret something that literally changes every day as new decisions are made and precedents are set....unless of course, they stayed at Holiday Inn Express?

teamsta · 05-17-2009, 10:44 AM

Oops, I double posted... see below......

teamsta · 05-17-2009, 10:48 AM

...even after almost 3 decades of using it daily.

Exactly. After 3 decades of practical use, your experience will blow anyone else out of the water in here in I’m sure. That’s 3 decades of using the laws, referring to them and the ongoing new case law, applying and interpreting them in the field, and then articulating your actions in court. That is a mind-blowing amount of experience!

What really worries me about some of the attitudes in here is that they think they know their rights and the law, and seem to be confrontational about it . Its all good for us to know our rights, and expect that they not be violated. That’s the great thing about living in Canada, obviously.

However, I can see the whole confrontational, anti Police thing, going very wrong for some people if they are dealing with the Police and end up obstructing an investigation even if they thought they were just "asserting their rights". When you don’t know the laws as well as you think you do, leave it up to the lawyers and the courts to sort out afterwards....... and don't be so ungrateful for the time the RS officers volunteer to deal with these scenarios and questions. Take their advice for what it is (pretty damn good IMO) and realize the judicial system is a lot more complicated than being able to provide totally black and white answers for every single made up RS scenario.

That’s my $.02 for what its worth.....