If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   In Ontario, it's now ok for cops to rummage through your house whenever they like as long as you didn't lock your door   (cbc.ca) divider line 87
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

6219 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Feb 2013 at 8:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-22 10:04:01 PM

MrHappyRotter: Jae0o0: Maybe i should stop drinking before posting too

And if you refrain from masturbating for a few moments, you can also type with two hands.


nt wrth it
 
2013-02-22 10:05:15 PM

inglixthemad: skinink: Not only is my phone password protected, but so is the SIM. But that's just me, I can't understand why you wouldn't want to password protect something that holds so much info.

I work for a private defense contractor. I am required to have a complex passcode that changes every 30 days, auto-lock in 1 minute, and the entire device is encrypted. Good luck Mr. Mountie, but don't mess with it too much because its going to auto-wipe. Oh, and I am required to inform if the phone is lost or just not in my possession with someone possibly trying to access it. Yes, they will remote wipe it. Heck, if I don't log into it every so often and verify it is in my possession it will wipe itself.


What's so impressive about that?  I sometimes wipe myself several times a day.
 
2013-02-22 10:05:49 PM

MrHappyRotter: Jae0o0: Maybe i should stop drinking before posting too

And if you refrain from masturbating for a few moments, you can also type with two hands.


Hey man, im only himan
 
2013-02-22 10:14:29 PM
Welcome to Fartbongo's Canada.
 
2013-02-22 10:23:36 PM
law enforcement does whatever law enforcement wants to do. you want rights, go be wealthy. your scumbag lawyer will get you out free on murder.
 
2013-02-22 10:30:42 PM
See, when gun-grabbers say, "other countries don't have a Second Amendment," I like to say, "or a Fourth Amendment. Or a First Amendment."

I'm clever that way.
 
2013-02-22 10:49:19 PM
Can they open your diary if it doesn't have a lock?  Because some people may have some, like, dark stained pages of personal secrets and perhaps some of which are written on what may seem to be flesh-ish pages and maybe some pages coagulated together and what not.  I just can't have them looking in my diary but it's too thick for it's original lock now.  Too personal, stay out plox.
 
2013-02-22 10:53:46 PM
Trolltastic headline is trolltastic.

Ex-cop from Ontario reporting in.

When you are arrested, the police have a commonlaw right to search you and anything in your possession for weapons, evidence, and anything likely to facilitate your escape or hurt somebody. For someone driving a car, this includes anything in the car that the driver could conveniently reach (a gun under the seat is OK, a beer bottle locked in a steamer trunk in the car's trunk would not be). They can go through your wallet, open up a locket, lift up your shoe insoles, whatever. They can go through your pager and record the numbers and messages you've received, and if you have a cell phone they can turn it on and leaf through the menus to inspect it. That's not new. The issue here is the power of the police to use a tool or brute force to open something you obviously intended to be kept secure and private.

Strike One:There are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of those three things (weapons, evidence, escape) exists on the phone. If these grounds exist, there is no practical barrier to getting a warrant. If the police can articulate how breaking into someone's phone stops an imminent threat to evidence, life or safety then they wouldn't need a warrant, but the same thing can be said of a dwelling-house.

Strike Two: Search incident to arrest is usually plain view plus one. Contents of pockets, purses, bags, anything you can pick up, point at your face and observe with a minimum of futzing around. Opening the password lock on a phone requires an investigative technique. That is literally what a 487.01 warrant is for.

Strike Three: As with many cases before them, bad investigations lead to bad case law. The cops in this case stepped so far over the line with what would ordinarily have been a "more-or-less-ok-if-you-can-articulate-it" technique that the judge had no choice but to explicitly condemn that behaviour by setting precedent. (See: Feeney).
 
2013-02-22 10:57:54 PM
Fun fact: my brother (a cop) once approached a house with his partner. They had a feeling something funky was going on, but no one was home. Rather than get a warrant, he opened the door, his partner declared "Oh, wow, look, the door is open and I think we need to do an immediate welfare check on the resident." The partner entered the home, my brother did not. Inside, the partner found something like 40 pounds of weed- and because he didn't open the door, it was all legit.

Dirty cops suck.
 
2013-02-22 10:58:03 PM
Goddammitsomuch subby.  That's not what it farking means.
 
2013-02-22 11:03:56 PM

Flakeloaf: Ex-cop from Ontario reporting in.

When you are arrested, the police have a commonlaw right to search you and anything in your possession for weapons, evidence, and anything likely to facilitate your escape or hurt somebody. For someone driving a car, this includes anything in the car that the driver could conveniently reach (a gun under the seat is OK, a beer bottle locked in a steamer trunk in the car's trunk would not be). They can go through your wallet, open up a locket, lift up your shoe insoles, whatever. They can go through your pager and record the numbers and messages you've received, and if you have a cell phone they can turn it on and leaf through the menus to inspect it. That's not new. The issue here is the power of the police to use a tool or brute force to open something you obviously intended to be kept secure and private.


This is horrible. This is the problem right there. The headline is hardly trolltastic if half of what you're explaining is true. I did not know people in Ontario were so much at the mercy of the OPP. And they have a lovely reputation for being fair handed. Just horrid.
 
2013-02-22 11:09:35 PM

Flakeloaf: When you are arrested, the police have a commonlaw right to search you and anything in your possession for weapons, evidence, and anything likely to facilitate your escape or hurt somebody.


Strike One:There are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of those three things (weapons, evidence, escape) exists on the phone.

So they can search for evidence, but only in places that evidence could exist?  How is a phone less likely to have evidence than anywhere else?
 
2013-02-22 11:10:13 PM

Flakeloaf: When you are arrested, the police have a commonlaw right to search you and anything in your possession for weapons, evidence, and anything likely to facilitate your escape or hurt somebody. For someone driving a car, this includes anything in the car that the driver could conveniently reach (a gun under the seat is OK, a beer bottle locked in a steamer trunk in the car's trunk would not be). They can go through your wallet, open up a locket, lift up your shoe insoles, whatever. They can go through your pager and record the numbers and messages you've received, and if you have a cell phone they can turn it on and leaf through the menus to inspect it. That's not new. The issue here is the power of the police to use a tool or brute force to open something you obviously intended to be kept secure and private.

Strike Three: As with many cases before them, bad investigations lead to bad case law. The cops in this case stepped so far over the line with what would ordinarily have been a "more-or-less-ok-if-you-can-articulate-it" technique that the judge had no choice but to explicitly condemn that behaviour by setting precedent. (See: Feeney).


What did the cops in this case do that was different than what you stated was already legally accepted practice?

And yes, the headline is trolltastic indeed.
 
2013-02-22 11:14:54 PM
Everyone in Canada is resetting their password to "f*ck the police".
 
2013-02-22 11:18:09 PM

Acharne:
This is horrible. This is the problem right there. The headline is hardly trolltastic if half of what you're explaining is true. I did not know people in Ontario were so much at the mercy of the OPP. And they have a lovely reputation for being fair handed. Just horrid.

That's Canada. Also, are you serious? You live in a jurisdiction where the police can't search your pockets if they arrest you? Search incident to arrest is a police power literally everywhere.

trappedspirit: So they can search for evidence, but only in places that evidence could exist? How is a phone less likely to have evidence than anywhere else?


It's not enough that it contains evidence, the need to acquire said evidence incident to arrest has to outweigh the subject's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Absent an explanation like "His phone contained the address where the victim was bound and gagged in an airtight container", you're not going to be able to reasonably justify collecting any evidence that requires an investigative technique to get.

CruiserTwelve: What did the cops in this case do that was different than what you stated was already legally accepted practice?


Their search of the phone incident to arrest was not intended to find a weapon, a way for the subject to injure someone or escape, or fragile evidence that would not have survived the delay in obtaining a warrant. The investigative technique required to unlock the phone and access its data was done with no demonstrably justifiable sense of urgency; i.e., they had the opportunity to get a warrant and chose not to. That's when the search became a s.8 violation.
 
2013-02-22 11:22:02 PM

Flakeloaf: Their search of the phone incident to arrest was not intended to find a weapon, a way for the subject to injure someone or escape, or fragile evidence that would not have survived the delay in obtaining a warrant. The investigative technique required to unlock the phone and access its data was done with no demonstrably justifiable sense of urgency; i.e., they had the opportunity to get a warrant and chose not to. That's when the search became a s.8 violation.


But the court's ruling seemed to state that the fact that no investigative technique was necessary (the phone was not password protected) made the search without a warrant lawful. In the US we'd call that a search incident to arrest.
 
2013-02-22 11:29:35 PM

thorthor: Everyone in Canada is resetting their password to "f*ck the police".


Either that or 'Canadian beer sucks'.

Okay, no they won't admit to that, but the cops would never try it.  They would try 'Go Wings' first
 
2013-02-22 11:35:27 PM
CruiserTwelve:
But the court's ruling seemed to state that the fact that no investigative technique was necessary (the phone was not password protected) made the search without a warrant lawful. In the US we'd call that a search incident to arrest.

Yup, that was me getting my cases crossed. I was thinking of the other file the article mentioned:

The Appeal Court judges referenced a decision in a murder case in which the judge did not allow evidence from a personal electronic device because it "functioned as a mini-computer," which has a high expectation of privacy. The contents of that device were only extracted by a police officer using specialized equipment in that case, the Appeal Court judges noted.

In the file with the guy who actually had the cell phone, which is the one I thought I was talking about until just now :), there was no technique. The cop pointed the phone at his face, pushed a button and evidence fell out. That's totally search incident. The court here said both that this kind of search was ok, and that a search of a password protected phone (seriously what smartphone doesn't have a keylock?) would not have been.
 
2013-02-22 11:38:35 PM

Flakeloaf: Acharne:
This is horrible. This is the problem right there. The headline is hardly trolltastic if half of what you're explaining is true. I did not know people in Ontario were so much at the mercy of the OPP. And they have a lovely reputation for being fair handed. Just horrid.

That's Canada. Also, are you serious? You live in a jurisdiction where the police can't search your pockets if they arrest you? Search incident to arrest is a police power literally everywhere.

trappedspirit: So they can search for evidence, but only in places that evidence could exist? How is a phone less likely to have evidence than anywhere else?

It's not enough that it contains evidence, the need to acquire said evidence incident to arrest has to outweigh the subject's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Absent an explanation like "His phone contained the address where the victim was bound and gagged in an airtight container", you're not going to be able to reasonably justify collecting any evidence that requires an investigative technique to get.

CruiserTwelve: What did the cops in this case do that was different than what you stated was already legally accepted practice?

Their search of the phone incident to arrest was not intended to find a weapon, a way for the subject to injure someone or escape, or fragile evidence that would not have survived the delay in obtaining a warrant. The investigative technique required to unlock the phone and access its data was done with no demonstrably justifiable sense of urgency; i.e., they had the opportunity to get a warrant and chose not to. That's when the search became a s.8 violation.


Well, frankly, I'm sure it's the same here in Saskatchewan. I'm not a cop-basher, I tend to have much respect for the police, perhaps not the OPP, but police in general. My concerns are a little bit more big picture, in that I can see how easily this is abused. I'm much more relaxed now that I read they would need to be actively arresting me for *something* to be able to search much. Still far, far too much power for any police officer to have over any private citizen. Too much room for bullies to practice their trade. While most police are great, it's that 1-2% whose powers go unchecked who get to be right dreadful to people for a long time. The natives around here get quite picked on.

I'm up on my indictable versus summary offences too. I'm certainly never personally worried about being arrested, but to be honest, the idea of arbitrarily having my freedom stripped based on prejudice, assumption or the bad mood of the arresting officer makes me nervous. Look at the T.O. Police during the G20. "Well, we know there were police abuses, but we spent lots time masking the police and hiding their badge numbers just so it would be too difficult for any citizen brought complaint to stick".
 
2013-02-22 11:42:38 PM

lack of warmth: thorthor: Everyone in Canada is resetting their password to "f*ck the police".

Either that or 'Canadian beer sucks'.

Okay, no they won't admit to that, but the cops would never try it.  They would try 'Go Wings' first


Just like the U.S. (Bud, Miller) and Australia (Fosters) the beer we EXPORT (key word) is shiat (Molson, Labatt)...

Never judge a country's beer based on what they export. That is a quite road to foolishness. Most of the beer I drink is brewed right here in town and never exported, you'd never know. When I lived in Portland and Washington I drank so much delicious beer that it became quickly apparent that my old stereotypes on U.S. beer were based, incorrectly, on exported brews.
 
2013-02-22 11:43:27 PM
The G20 was a gong show from A to Z and I'm astounded at how nobody meaningful went to jail.

Search incident is just a thing we get to stop people (usually us) from dying in jail. But yeah, out your way it's totally a game of Indian Pants Pockets Bingo and it's farking sickening.
 
2013-02-22 11:47:15 PM

Your Average Witty Fark User: ..and because he didn't open the door, it was all legit.


thatworddoesnotmeanwhatyouthinkitmeans.com

your example and subsequest butthurt would be even better (more legit......?) were it not for the 40 lbs of weed
 
2013-02-22 11:53:39 PM

Flakeloaf: It's not enough that it contains evidence, the need to acquire said evidence incident to arrest has to outweigh the subject's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Absent an explanation like "His phone contained the address where the victim was bound and gagged in an airtight container", you're not going to be able to reasonably justify collecting any evidence that requires an investigative technique to get


Searching my front pants pocket requires an investigative technique.
 
2013-02-23 12:00:19 AM

trappedspirit: Flakeloaf: It's not enough that it contains evidence, the need to acquire said evidence incident to arrest has to outweigh the subject's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Absent an explanation like "His phone contained the address where the victim was bound and gagged in an airtight container", you're not going to be able to reasonably justify collecting any evidence that requires an investigative technique to get

Searching my front pants pocket requires an investigative technique.


[img-inigo montoya.jpg]
 
2013-02-23 12:18:04 AM

Flakeloaf: trappedspirit: Flakeloaf: It's not enough that it contains evidence, the need to acquire said evidence incident to arrest has to outweigh the subject's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Absent an explanation like "His phone contained the address where the victim was bound and gagged in an airtight container", you're not going to be able to reasonably justify collecting any evidence that requires an investigative technique to get

Searching my front pants pocket requires an investigative technique.

[img-inigo montoya.jpg]


I think you don't know how a smart phone works.  Because it's smart.
 
2013-02-23 12:55:56 AM
If you have something to hide, and you're that bad at hiding it... Well, have fun in jail
 
2013-02-23 02:32:43 AM

cats are better: J. Frank Parnell: cats are better: don't want your phone searched, don't get arrested.

Because no one has been wrongfully arrested ever.

if you've been wrongfully arrested, what is there to hide on your phone?


Anything I wish to keep private, including evidence of other crimes. An arrest for one crime, wrongful or not, does  not in itself justify a search for evidence of other crimes on your phone.  Warrantless searches incident to arrest are limited here in the U. S.  Broadly, they are confined to searches to a) ensure officer safety and b) prevent the destruction of evidence pertaining to the crime for which a person is arrested.

"In one case in Kansas, for example, the arresting officer downloaded the memory from the arrestee's cellphone for subsequent search. The court found that this seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officer only downloaded the dialed and incoming numbers, and because it was imperative to preserve the evidence given the volatile, easily destroyed, nature of cell phone memory.

"In contrast, in another case in California, the court held that a cellphone search was not justified by the SITA doctrine because it was conducted for investigatory reasons rather than out of a concern for officer safety, or to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence. The officers could seize the phone, and then go obtain a warrant to do any searching of it. The decision rejected the idea that the data searched was not private, in light of the nature and amount of information usually stored on cell phones and laptops."
 
2013-02-23 03:29:08 AM

inglixthemad: skinink: Not only is my phone password protected, but so is the SIM. But that's just me, I can't understand why you wouldn't want to password protect something that holds so much info.

I work for a private defense contractor. I am required to have a complex passcode that changes every 30 days, auto-lock in 1 minute, and the entire device is encrypted. Good luck Mr. Mountie, but don't mess with it too much because its going to auto-wipe. Oh, and I am required to inform if the phone is lost or just not in my possession with someone possibly trying to access it. Yes, they will remote wipe it. Heck, if I don't log into it every so often and verify it is in my possession it will wipe itself.


It is almost as if these guys (the OPP, not the Mounties) has teams of people to get around annoying things like encryption...
 
2013-02-23 04:49:13 AM
Meanwhile, in Canada...

www.awesomegalore.com
 
2013-02-23 08:14:59 AM

wumpus: Mega Steve: Welcome to Obama's America

Canada is Obama's America?


In just a few short years, there will be a North American Union consisting of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.  GWB signed the treaty with Canada and Mexico in 2007.  It's almost like "we the people" were not consulted and have no say so in the matter.
 
2013-02-23 09:24:42 AM
Wow. You're really are a complete f*cking idiot subby.
 
2013-02-23 11:41:27 AM

LiteWerk: wumpus: Mega Steve: Welcome to Obama's America

Canada is Obama's America?

In just a few short years, there will be a North American Union consisting of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.  GWB signed the treaty with Canada and Mexico in 2007.  It's almost like "we the people" were not consulted and have no say so in the matter.


Why not?  Makes sense.  Canada has the natural resources.  The U.S. has the manufacturing and distribution capacity.  Mexico has the cheap labour.  It's a win-win-win.
 
2013-02-23 03:12:34 PM

silverjets: It's a win-win-win.


More like win-whine-poutine, amiright?
 
2013-02-24 12:26:01 AM

johnny_vegas: Your Average Witty Fark User: ..and because he didn't open the door, it was all legit.

thatworddoesnotmeanwhatyouthinkitmeans.com

your example and subsequest butthurt would be even better (more legit......?) were it not for the 40 lbs of weed


Oh that's right, I forgot all about unlawful search and seizure. These two ass clowns (one of which is my brother) make a habit of this. In their area, "welfare check" is used synonymously with "we're entering your home if we can, without a warrant".

So yeah, eat my ass.
 
2013-02-24 04:22:18 AM
So.. uh, if they pick up your phone, and access something private from THE CLOUD. Is it unauthorized access of a computer system? At that point, it's not inspecting the keys you had in your pocket. It's taking them, driving to the bank, and checking out your safety deposit box.

ghostwind: inglixthemad: skinink: Not only is my phone password protected, but so is the SIM. But that's just me, I can't understand why you wouldn't want to password protect something that holds so much info.

I work for a private defense contractor. I am required to have a complex passcode that changes every 30 days, auto-lock in 1 minute, and the entire device is encrypted. Good luck Mr. Mountie, but don't mess with it too much because its going to auto-wipe. Oh, and I am required to inform if the phone is lost or just not in my possession with someone possibly trying to access it. Yes, they will remote wipe it. Heck, if I don't log into it every so often and verify it is in my possession it will wipe itself.

It is almost as if these guys (the OPP, not the Mounties) has teams of people to get around annoying things like encryption...


It's almost as if this topic was about looking at someone's phone during a stop, not seizing it and sending to the lab.
 
2013-02-24 11:27:01 AM

Krieghund: Point02GPA:
1mjui 8ygtr d34rt 99zsa uyg4c lfn7a qqm87 hy091 addrf
P....... A ......S.......S.......W.......O........R..........D.........1


DRAT!!!
 
2013-02-24 12:57:23 PM

LiteWerk: wumpus: Mega Steve: Welcome to Obama's America

Canada is Obama's America?

In just a few short years, there will be a North American Union consisting of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.  GWB signed the treaty with Canada and Mexico in 2007.  It's almost like "we the people" were not consulted and have no say so in the matter.


Good God. No, no, no nonononononon...X a million times. There's very little if any support in Canada in joining the United States. Ever. WE didn't do it 147 years ago at the time of confederation, and it wouldn't work now. We share a common language, but Americas economic outlook is terrible while Canada's just gets better and better. It's like the once successful guy next door who is now out of a job and living on welfare asking if you he can move in with you...cause it makes sense to him. No farking way. You stay on your side of the fence, we'll stay right here.
 
Displayed 37 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report