Bonus question: if** Swallowed my Cellphone** swallows the police officer’s cellphone just as the officer is trying to speak to a judge to obtain a tele-warrant, does that meet the test for exigent circumstances?
Refusal to voluntarily permit a warrentless search of one’s home is not grounds for a search warrant in Canada. People in Canada have a Constitutional right that protects against unreasonable search and seizure (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.8). A person standing on his or her constitutional right does not in and of itself justify violation of that right by the state. If, as the The Toronto Star reported, the lead investigator stated: “While people have the right not to answer questions from police or let them into their homes, those who do not co-operate may find themselves subject to a search warrant, said the lead investigator,” then the officer was talking out his ass and simply using a strong arm tactic against the general public by implying that refusal to voluntarily permit a search could lead to a non-voluntary search.
If the police were to use a refusal in this matter to intimidate or roust a person in the future in this or an unrelated matter, then the person would have recourse through the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, the civil courts and the criminal courts, depending on the circumstances of the police action.
Dudes also sometimes think they are “helping the investigation” by talking to the police, even when they are a suspect. Dudes somehow think that if they just explain things, everything will be OK. This is not true- once you are a suspect, there is nothing you can say which will make the police drop you. If your alibi is poor, they will seize upon that. If the alibi is solid and facile- why that’s evidence of guilt, as most people don’t have alibis. Then the police waste resources trying to crack your alibi. Actually, lawyering up is best- the police then usually drop it on the DA’s lap, and your lawyer can talk lawyer to the DA.
Just like hand grenades where once you pull the pin, Mr Grenade is no longer your friend- once Mr Policeman has read you your rights, he is no longer your friend.
Not if the other officer has a cellphone and can successfully keep it away from Swallowed My Cellphone while making the call. 
I don’t know, I made a quick “decision” and gave my answer accordingly.
I second the emotion of I’m not letting them in my condo because I’m all too aware of police putting certain people in jail that they know are innocent and they just have a bone to pick with them. As a young AA male I have never actually been assisted by the police, only harassed. I’ve needed there help (a. when my car was stolen and b. when I was physically assaulted) and they’ve just blown me off without providing any assistance. Luckily I’ve had friends who were able to assist with me in both instances, and luckily resolved both issues without the police’s assistance. And I don’t have enough toes and fingers to count how many times the police have stopped me both on foot and in vehicle, driving or passenger, to harass me for some absurd reason. Unfortunately for me and a certain subset of the population, the police are not seen as Public Service officials or Protectors, but more like a serious nuisance and annoyance.
Sorry, didn’t read the intervening posts, but I’d like some guarantee that I won’t be hassled for anything not related to the case. For example, lets say I have a bag of suspicious-looking white powder on my counter. I don’t want it confiscated, I don’t want to be questioned about it, and I don’t want to go to court about it.
Missed window: Especially since I like to keep my laundry detergent in ziploc bags because it’s lighter to carry down to the washing machine.
Maybe, but at what point, if any, should this cooperation stops?
I remember that in a child rape/murder case here, they asked a DNA test of the whole male population of a village (without result, but that’s irrelevant). Only one guy refused (and was investigated as a result).
So, yes, I would open my door and let them search my appartment, but would I accept to have my DNA sampled too in order to cooperate? I think I would be at best reluctant. I’m not sure where is the line, but I think there’s one. For instance, what if they want to search your closets? Look into your computer? Read your personal diary? Check the calls you got on your cell phone? (of course, in this scenario, without warrant…just asking you to cooperate).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=related This has done a few laps around the board. When to talk to cops…never.
Thanks - fascinating lecture!
That is quite false- as long as you are not a suspect as long as you are not being detained or your rights have been read.
Now he makes an excellent point, one which I have made here- in that you can be in violation of the Law and not know it.
It is also true, you can not talk your way out of being arrested. I have made that point also here.
As long as you are just a witness, it’s really your duty.
Well obviously “never” is an exaggeration. For example, I would talk to the police if my house had been broken into, and they wanted information so they could help me. I’d talk to them if I had witnessed a car accident. However, the video is dealing with talking to police when you are a suspect.
In the case of the OP, it does not seem that the police want to come in and look around your house because you are a potential WITNESS. That makes no sense. Why would they want to look around the house of a WITNESS? They must, therefore, be classifying you as a SUSPECT. In which case the advice from the above video would seem to be pertinent.
Right, and in Part II, where the Police Officer more or less agrees with part I, he does say, the first thing he does in “an interview” is read the suspect his rights.
Thus, in both Part I and Part II, we are talking about a Interview as a suspect, where your rights have been given to you. Not as a witness or a victim.
So- it’s never talk to cops- when you are a suspect.
Not only a suspect, but part of an investigation or fishing expedition. Any thing you say can be used against you. You can get wrapped up into something without knowing it. It is not safe.
It is very hard for something you say to be used against you if you have not been Mirandized. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
Utter rubbish. Such cautions are for when the person is not free to leave. This has nothing at all to do with the matter in Toronto, which deals exclusively with people who are in no way at all detained, or arrested, or in custody, or in any other manner restricted. Look, DrDeth, I appreciate you opinion that you would permit police to search you home. That is all well and fine, for it is your choice.
Yours legal opinions, however, are quite another thing. When you invent law whole hog, it does nothing to assist the discussion. Please stop making things up.
In Toronto (where the OP is from), police very rarely Mirandize anyone. Pretty much never, actually.
In fact, I’ve been told that police in TO often have a good laugh when some mook says “hey, you didn’t read me my rights!” They have to explain to him what country he’s in.
No, it happens.
If I recall a Criminal Procedure class I once took, there is much caselaw on the subject of Canadian police reading people their rights. The upshot is that Canadian police have to make sure that someone who has been arrested and charged, and about to be questioned does know their rights. While the wording may vary between police services in Canada, the substance is the same: the legal rights granted under the Charter. Wikipedia gives a good sample of what a Canadian police officer might say:
However, as I recall that Crim Procedure course, the warning need not be given on the spot, and can be given later, at the police station and before questioning–this may be where the confusion arises. The mook who argues that because the police did not read him his rights at the scene (the situation often shown on TV), he should be free on a technicality; is in for an unpleasant surprise.
I think the caution should be re-worded:
“You are under arrest for _________ (charge), do you understand? You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. We will provide you with a toll-free telephone lawyer referral service, if you do not have your own lawyer, however these lawyers are on strike. Anything you say can be used in court as evidence. Do you understand? Would you like to speak to a lawyer who will tell you that he can not take you on as a client?”
A fellow once gave my home phone number to the various police departments in the region, so every weekend I’d get calls in the middle of the night from the drunk tanks. The calls always started with the operator (or digital operator) asking if I would accept the telephone charges, to which I would say “no”. One time they put the accused’s call through anyway, so when the fellow asked what he should do, I told him he should call a lawyer. (Unfortunately, I couldn’t simply turn off the phone, for if something serious came up the police would call me (no toll) and put the accused on the line – it was the Saturday night drunks that I didn’t want to waste my time on.)