Why do some people not understand this?

because

when you pull over, you should turn the car off and put your hands on the steering wheel.

These simple actions will relieve the officer from 2 things:
1) You're not going to drive off
2) You're not a threat (carrying a weapon or such)

The fact this dumbass still had his car running already pissed off the cop.
Legally, you don't need to lower your window all the way. But why wouldn't you?
Its' late at night, it's hard for the officer to see the driver's face, hence why he had to shine his flashlight in his face. It's just suspicious.

I don't think you guys understand the situation from legal perspective.

Most of you say "if you have nothing to hide, why don't you cooperate?"
Well once you consent to searches, police can do whatever they want.

Here's the scenario:

You get pulled over on the road block, you aren't drinking or smoking weed, so you consent to searches because you have "nothing to hide"
If you ask lawyers, they will straight up tell you it's better not to consent to police searches.

Cops can tear your car down, doors, dashpanels, seats, everything.
They will literally throw your baggage outta trunk, and strip your car down.
Guess what, they aren't gonna fix everything in place for you, because you already consent it, and cops have no obligation to fix everything. Even if they broke something, like plastic pieces on your dash panel, your cell phone charger, anything.

Sure, in this particular case, the guy may have been smoking weed, but I've heard of completely innocent people in BC getting screwed over by this police searches without search warrant.

Also if the guy had a right to get a lawyer, he should have been able to. It's not illegal to get a lawyer, as soon as he said he's gonna call lawyer, sure maybe cops thought that he better hurry up because it may cause some mild to medium inconvenience to the officers, but if that's how legal system works/allows him to do, cops should have followed that rule. We're in Canada, not in China, North Korea or some messed up place where citizens have little to no rights.

I'm not supporting DUI in any way, I'm just talking about constitutional rights, if he had any in that situation. I don't think that cop was too bad, at least he warned the guy and stuff, but if he had a right to get a lawyer, he should have.

In this scenario the officer was not asking the individuals consent for a search, he flat out told the kid he was under arrest.

The kid starts off by saying all this crap about tell me why I was pulled over and that bullshit, in BC an officer doesn't have to have a reason to pull you over, he can pull you over just to check paperwork.

In this case I'm willing to bet this kid had flags on his tags, or his previous history alerted police to the fact that something could be up here. Coupled with his obvious attempts to hide something and the fact that it probably did smell like weed if they found weed in the car and you have a pretty clear case.

This case might have had some merit of the kid had a clean history, and had nothing in his car, but as it stands the kid was breaking the law and refused a direct order when asked to comply by an officer.

Because what if it's an unlawful request? Then we're going down a slippery slope where you're giving up your rights and complying just to avoid the use of unjustified force.

I'm not saying this is the same thing as what happened in this case, but this is to illustrate that for unlawful requests, you have the right to refuse to comply. If they use force to make you comply, they are violating your rights.

ok well then maybe in this scenario everything was fine, looks like they even posted on their facebook page too.

You have the right to a lawyer once you are arrested.

This isn't pirates of the carribean, telling a police officer you are going to call a lawyer doesn't mean they can't arrest you all of a sudden.

I don't think you understand it from a life perspective.

Except this:

The question of searching the car never came up, at least not in the portion of video the kid chose to share. If there's something before the video starts that includes a request to search, well, maybe he shouldn't have edited that out.

The video as everyone has seen it doesn't even include to cop asking for his DL and regi. It doesn't include the cop stating why he was pulled over, despite it being clear from later comments that he WAS told. So it's obvious there's more to the encounter that we're not being shown, probably because it doesn't suit this twat's purpose of making cops look like dicks.

Again with the US videos. Really, REALLY not the same kinda system here. Canadians need to get over the "Miranda rights" and all that other shit they've had crammed into their heads by American cop shows. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY HERE.

You do have your charter rights but i'm not sure if those kick in after being arrested or once you're detained.

Yes we do have charter rights, but they're nowhere near the same as those under the US Constitution. For starters, the wording is substantially more Olde English and convoluted, but while much (not all) of the spirit of those rights are the same, a lot of the specifics are very different.

Random vehicle stops are authorized by the Motor Vehicle Act under section 73. Sure, some may argue that this infringes upon one's right to be free from arbitrary detention; but, the SCC has held that "the objective of controlling the social evil of drunk driving is of sufficient importance that the infringement is justified." It's a reasonable limitation under section 1 of the Charter.

Essentially, an officer is allowed to randomly stop a vehicle; s/he doesn't have to give you a reason. At this time, the officer will be able to observe the driver for signs of impairment to decide whether there are grounds to demand a breath sample. This is when one's right to counsel kicks in.

In this fool's case, the officer could smell marijuana coming out of his vehicle; this is sufficient for the officer to demand that he exit his vehicle.

However, this bumbling idiot refuses to comply, has his window smashed in, and gets dragged out. All of which are completely justified.

If an unlawful request is being made, at the roadside is not the time or place to be arguing it. Complying and dealing with it afterwards via the proper channels is going to end a lot better than refusing to comply with the same person that made the request.

Wish the kid didn't edit the video down so much, have too many questions..

So essentially, you would have to give up your rights.

No matter what a cop says, you should always comply?

Sure, you can deal with what results from it like getting your case thrown out of court or what not, but you will never reverse the fact that your rights were violated though.

as per police cheif


also Chu noted that charges are pending in the case for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. He also noted that no one was injured and no police complaint was filed.


hmm , however he wasn't charged with impaired driving or being under influence, but possession charges are pending..?!

Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see what the connection is with Miranda rights with this is.

What is "all that other shit" that's different from US than Canada that applies to this case? I would really like to know.

I get your point, but look at it this way: what kind of outcomes do you think are likely from refusing to comply at the roadside? Do you really think someone who would violate your rights is just going to shrug and let you go? Because I feel like you're a lot more likely to end up with additional charges. You also better be 110% sure that what you think is correct or you'll have a really bad time.

"Possession of Marijuana Over 30 gr, 2x Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, and Obstruction/Willfully Resist Arrest"

These are the charges against the driver with regards to this stop. So if you are wondering why this happened.....yeah he got what he deserved.

Example | Define Example at Dictionary.com

What constitutes probable cause... reasonable search... reasonable doubt. "I want my one phone call!" Blah blah blah. Zulu, sho, and other resident cops have commented on the differences many times. Perhaps you should start paying attention.

Chris rock got pulled over 3 times in the last 2 months and no windows where broken.
Someone should take a lesson.


Chris Rock Police Photos: Comedian Claims He Was Stopped By Cops Three Times in Two Months, Posts Selfies - Hollywood Reporter

Well, we already went over this earlier.

We don't know all of the details, but IF the officer only smelled burnt marijuana, not fresh marijuana, then this has been proven to be NOT sufficient grounds for arrest or vehicle search, IN CANADA.

IF that is what actually happened, then that guy's rights were violated.

Without know any additional details, I don't know if his rights were violated or not.

I think it's a sufficient ground to arrest or search to prevent destruction of evidence or to preserve evidence. That's really broad. Smelling burnt weed could reasonably lead to presuming there is more drugs in the car? seems viable.

Charges after being arrested this time.
"Possession of Marijuana Over 30 gr, 2x Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, and Obstruction/Willfully Resist Arrest"

What would you like to bet he has others that would give an officer justified cause to pull this individual over?
Given that he was found to be in possession of marijuana (what the officer said he smelt) and had enough to have charges put against him I think really solidifies all the bullshit that keeps going on in this thread.
He's a drug dealer who got busted by a cop....job well done IMO.

If an officer states 'You are under arrest', it's not an invitation to discuss whether or not you think he has grounds for it. If he didn't have grounds for it, there will be recourse later.
I can't believe you're still trying to make arguments from the kids side.. just stahp..