I was going to be in the camp of “I don’t think this type of dragnet is proper or have any chance of being effective, but I’d probably allow the search”) until I heard that the missing woman is 18.
I can better understand the community fear and outrage over a missing child that might precipitate such searches, but for an adult?
And it’s insane to argue that anyone living in a neighborhood or community is a suspect if the police want to conduct a massive dragnet. That’s the type of thinking that awhile back in Boston led cops to randomly stop/question/harass blacks after it was reported that a black man had robbed and shot a white couple, killing the wife (it later turned out that the husband had killed his wife and falsely reported a black perpetrator).
It is brainless and intrusive to “profile” an entire neighborhood.
“Excuse me, we’re in the area investigating this woman’s disappearance and hope you wouldn’t mind us going through your house looking for clues. Thanks! Sayyyy…aren’t those enormous bloodstains I see on your kitchen floor? And body parts hanging out of your refrigerator? Hmm, maybe we need to ask you a few more questions…”
American citizens in general do not take kindly to these fishing expeditions, nor to the massive collections of DNA that we sometimes hear about in connection with murders in Great Britain.
Evidence is not fact. It is subject to impeachment, and generally cops know that. A printing press in a house is not evidence of a crime. There is nothing exigent about it. If they have concerns, and actually want a court to hear the evidence, they will get a warrant.
My understanding of that subset of posters here was that they had a pisspoor understanding of the law and their rights and how to exercise them, and never really got passed the lesson 3 year olds learn that “a police officer is always your friend”. That is the sort of mindset that makes rights tenuous for all of us.
Given the short time she was in the country, I am guessing she was tied up with some shit in her home country before she left, and never planned to stay - it was a ruse for Mom to come to Canada at all.
See “Hans Reiser’s Kids” to see how hard it would be to both find her and bring her back.
An additional issue for anyone in the search area in Toronto is that, under Canadian law, anything the police find during an unconstitutional search is not necessarily excluded, as the relevant criteria is whether allowing the unconstitutionally acquired evidence to be included would bring the legal system into disrepute or not. This is a much looser criteria than the “constitutional/not constitutional” bright line criteria used in the US.
Right. What do you think is going to happen when you say, “Okay, that’s enough, stop there and get out of my house”? They are going to think they’re close to finding what they came looking for. Good luck getting them out at that point.
Agree. If they have reason to suspect the victim is still in the area and being held, it seems incredibly stupid to broadcast your plan to search the neighborhood.
I wouldn’t be thrilled about the police searching my place, and I understand the deal about search warrants and probable cause. But in this case I’d let them in. It saves them and me from wasting time.
Come in, look around, and then leave. Just don’t trash the place looking for ummmmm evidience of ummmmm something.
This is the key point. Who knows what the police will interpret as evidence of shady behavior? If they’re on a fishing expedition, they might spot a minnow and talk themselves into believing it’s a nice big catfish.
We’ve seen too many examples of people being convicted on flimsy evidence. Look at Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed for a crime he almost certainly didn’t commit. Part of the “evidence” against him was his preference for heavy metal music _ that shows a propensity toward violence and perhaps satanism, don’t you know.
Anything that extreme is unlikely under this scenario. What isn’t unlikely is that police will spot something that makes them suspicious and winds up wasting their time and complicating your life.
Uh, how does simply saying no, you can’t come in waste more time than letting them in. Pretty certain odds are that you won’t hear from them again either way, so how is simply sending them away a better use of time?
Except in Canadian law, the standard for the plain view doctrine is exactly the same as for the warrant requirement. I take your point - if all they find is a printing machine and nothing more, nothing to show that it’s being used for a counterfeiting operation, then they can’t seize it under the plain view doctrine. However, neither would they have any basis for getting a warrant.
Here’s the Code provision for the plain view doctrine in Canada:
And here’s the warrant provision:
Both plain view and a warrant require that there is reasonable grounds to believe that the thing to be seized will provide evidence of an offence.
So if the police just find a printing machine and nothing more, the fact that it might be capable of being used to print counterfeit money isn’t enough to seize it under the plain view doctrine - but neither is it enough to get a warrant.
On the other hand, if they find it with additional evidence of counterfeiting, such as counterfeit bills already printed, draft attempts at counterfeit bills, and so on, then that would likely be enough to seize it under plain view - or to get a warrant. But since they’re authorised by the plain view doctrine, there’s no need to get a warrant.
Your post seems to assume that if there isn’t enough to allow them to seize it under plain view, then they can instead get a warrant. But since the test is the same, that’s not the case.
Actually, my point was meant to be quite different. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.
What I was trying to say was, plain view, or not, evidence seized is always subject to impeachment in an adversarial court system, and this ought to inhibit police simply seizing everything and letting the courts sort it out.
The standard of “reasonableness” is not ultimately one for police to decide, it is for courts to decide. But police do themselves no favors by getting it wrong.
Even if the standards are substantially the same, police ought to know when they are on the border and that their strength at withstanding impeachment is enhanced with a warrant.
Which is all the more reason to not let them in without a warrant - once they are in, you are relying on the police to make the same judgment a judge would otherwise make regarding admissibility of evidence, without any specific training to make sure a fair trial would occur. Which would you rather have making the decision?
Exactly. Also, since when is this an effective tactic? Knocking on doors in a neighborhood? Methinks the police know something very specific that they’re looking for, and this has a clear purpose behind it. That said, since (a) I have nothing to do with said murder, and (b) they might find my…friend’s stash, nah. Or, sheesh, what if something I own looks suspicious? I’d be OCD-ing all over the place.
Besides the Fourth Amendment considerations, I have a very good reason for not letting the police search my home without a warrant:
I want a piece of paper with the name of the guy who authorized this in case it all goes pear-shaped. I want to know who to put on the hook. I want accountability.
So the police shouldn’t rely on a search power expressly granted to them by the Parliament of Canada, codifying a common law power of search recognized by the courts and applied on a daily basis? seems an odd approach to me.
Section 24(2) provides that in the case of a Charter infringement, evidence can be excluded, but it is not an automatic rule. The courts will consider a variety of factors in assessing whether evidence should be excluded.
The Supreme Court delivered a major ruling on the interpretation of s. 24(2) last July: R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32.
Here’s a summary of the majority’s analyisis from the head-note of the decision:
Like I said, the clear purpose is almost certainly allowing the Police Chief to give an illusion** SOMETHING is being done **on a very hot media case. He has to do something, even if he knows it’s useless.