They took his Kodachrome away?

No more nice bright colors...

Agnieska Wojtanowska says Black's violated her Charter rights back in 2001 when a worker handed the photos over to police.

Drug charges were later dropped when the pictures were excluded as evidence because they were obtained without a search warrant.

At least they excluded the evidence.

They sooooo were going out to buy one of them digital cameras. As soon as they were done with.... Hey is that cheetos?!?!?

Yeah should have bought one of them new fangled polariod cameras.

/who wrote TFA, Grandpa Simpson?

Ah, Canadians.

smart move.
eliminate 20% of your remaining clientele by narking on them.

Charges were dropped you got lucky doing something illegal, leave it at that. If not, then you run into this situation, you provide the photos and all of a sudden those charges come back.

thenateman: Agnieska Wojtanowska says Black's violated her Charter rights back in 2001 when a worker handed the photos over to police.

Drug charges were later dropped when the pictures were excluded as evidence because they were obtained without a search warrant.

At least they excluded the evidence.

Why, through? If a worker found pictures of you raping a two year old, wouldn't those be admissible? They are in the US and I don't think Canada's criminal laws are that different from ours.

LesserEvil: Hmmmm... in order to get damages, she needs to produce the photos in a court of law, thus negating the argument that got her cleared of drug charges. In other words, to win the case, she will screw herself.

This dumbass was bound to get themselves busted doing something else stupid.

LesserEvil: Hmmmm... in order to get damages, she needs to produce the photos in a court of law, thus negating the argument that got her cleared of drug charges. In other words, to win the case, she will screw herself.

How? She won't be presenting them as evidence in her case for growing pot. She'll be introducing them as evidence that they were illegally turned over to police.

They still weren't obtained by the police via warrant, so they'll continue to be inadmissible in court in any case attempting to pin the grow op on her.

/NAL

LesserEvil: Hmmmm... in order to get damages, she needs to produce the photos in a court of law, thus negating the argument that got her cleared of drug charges. In other words, to win the case, she will screw herself.



Wait, Canada? Yeah she's boned...

Satanic_Hamster: Why, through? If a worker found pictures of you raping a two year old, wouldn't those be admissible? They are in the US and I don't think Canada's criminal laws are that different from ours.

Yeah, I always thought that in certain cases (maybe child abuse?), businesses and medical professionals are required to let the police know.

repost from 2001?

/old news is old

The_Six_Fingered_Man: LesserEvil: Hmmmm... in order to get damages, she needs to produce the photos in a court of law, thus negating the argument that got her cleared of drug charges. In other words, to win the case, she will screw herself.

How? She won't be presenting them as evidence in her case for growing pot. She'll be introducing them as evidence that they were illegally turned over to police.

They still weren't obtained by the police via warrant, so they'll continue to be inadmissible in court in any case attempting to pin the grow op on her.

/NAL

I wonder what the estimated steet value of this 'pot porn' is?

/prolly like a brazillian dollars!

If only she'd had a Polaroid camera.

Yes. Right after she finished installing gramophone in her autogyro, she should have picked up a Polaroid camera. Thanks, The Canadian Press

oldebayer: They took his Kodachrome away?

No more nice bright colors...

No more greens of summers

Primitive Screwhead: oldebayer: They took his Kodachrome away?

No more nice bright colors...

No more greens of summers

*nice*

That was especially appropos here.

Are these photo processing things common anymore? I'm not sure I know a single person with a film-camera left, that doesn't have it for (pseudo)professional photography/ect.

strike>"back in 2001 when a worker handed the photos over to police."
did anyone notice - 8 years ago - not everybody had a digital camera back then, if i remember correctly.

IonBeam2: Potheads: less more intelligent than psychology majors.

FTFY

Only suitable film for psychoactive drugs:

Dude, bogus.

So, a picture of a marijuana plant is illegal to possess? Interesting.

Wal-Mart is notorious for this as well.

My brother's family lost several rolls of vacation film when some Wal-Mart hillbillies decided that a family enjoying a traditional Japanese bath, in Japan, is against the wishes of Baby Jesus. The police wouldn't even do anything, so Wal-Mart destroyed them. Not just the roll with those pics on it, but all of them.

Then of course their stories changed and they "lost" them in the confusion that comes with stopping pedophilia from behind the counter of a Wal-Mart photo lab.

Death to Wal-Mart, and her hillbilly enablers.

Judge to Defendant: "Pic's or it didn't happen, n00b!"

Why are only blacks being sued? That's racist.

n00b_no_skillz: strike>"back in 2001 when a worker handed the photos over to police."
did anyone notice - 8 years ago - not everybody had a digital camera back then, if i remember correctly.


and again I'm reminded of the folly of posting when i DNRTFA
sigh.
good point.

Arklop: the_sidewinder: Question, why would you take pictures of your illegal activities?



"Only insane men would..."

/obscure?



False advertising. Was an hour and a half longer than it purported to be, or should have been.

Thanks for reminding me.

A few years ago I found an old roll of film I had and decided to get it developed at CVS to see what was on it. The girl behind the counter gave me the envelop of prints and flashed a wry smile.

I got home, looked at the pictures, and discovered a naked picture of me my girlfriend had taken without me realizing it. Didn't read the article, but I can see how this sort of thing could happen.

miltonbabbitt: A few years ago I found an old roll of film I had and decided to get it developed at CVS to see what was on it. The girl behind the counter gave me the envelop of prints and flashed a wry smile.

I got home, looked at the pictures, and discovered a naked picture of me my girlfriend had taken without me realizing it. Didn't read the article, but I can see how this sort of thing could happen.

Well, I guess a wry smile is better than a belly laugh.

/but was there any incriminating weed in the photo?

What's film?

dabbletech: What's film?

It's that white layer of filth on your tongue that smells like arse.

dabbletech: What's film?

It's what we used to use way back in the 1900's to photograph our pot farms.

IonBeam2: Potheads: lessmore intelligent than psychology majorsIonBeam2.

FTFY