Kamloops, B.C. (kamloopsnews.ca) – There will be people who applaud the justice system because a guilty plea was wrangled out of a guy even though his civil rights were violated.
But should a questionable search by the RCMP be something to celebrate in a democratic society?
The recent case in Kamloops provincial court involved a man known by police as a thief. Officers spotted him emerging from a local hardware store and conducted a search. Voila, they found he indeed had stolen property on him – $12 worth of wristbands.
The items are irrelevant. In Canada, police must have reasonable grounds to search anyone and reasonable grounds do not include a suspicious looking face or past history.
Many people will not be able to get around this specific incident, but our laws did not evolve by focusing on individuals. It is about the rights of the whole that led to laws regarding personal searches.
If RCMP members are allowed to search anyone at will, there is no protection for law-abiding citizens. There are countries in the world where police are permitted to go into the homes of private citizens home on a whim or stop people on the street for a shake down. These are not happy places to live.
The police officers who stopped the young thief had no business at all going through his pockets. Other than past knowledge of his penchant for shoplifting, they had no reason to suspect he was carrying stolen goods. It’s not a good enough reason. People do not lose their rights forever once a sentence is served in this country.
The suspect pleaded guilty because he was in custody for the offence and would have ended up behind bars for a far longer period of time waiting for trial than the 21 days to which he was sentenced.
Yes, the Mounties got their man and many people will say the ends justified the means. But wait until they are the ones unlawfully stopped and confined and see how quickly they start to see the beauty of living in a democratic society.
These rights were hard-earned and developed over many years of trial and error. Officers who do not respect the rule of the law damage the very justice system they are sworn to uphold.
In this case, a petty thief got 21 days in jail and two stolen wristbands were returned. It was a victory hardly worth the blow delivered to democracy.
You may wish to check with your old cousins D on the efficacy of trunk searches ‘back in the day’. There was a time when a ‘common practice’ for miscreants was justification for searches or stops by the police. In cases of rustling cattle and theft of livestock in the prairies, the usual culmination of such nefarious activity was a stocking of the freezers of the thieves with the loot after butchering. It was routine that the Mounties would visit various suspect farmhouses and check the freezer for stolen goods. No warrants held. Contraband found. Several people convicted over the years of such related offenses was the outcome.
Trunks full of stolen property, booze, drugs and various contraband based on not much more than suspicion or that good old gut feeling experienced Mounties had. Almost like the ends justified the means.
So here you are decrying the violation of a miscreants rights when in fact the officer was correct, while in past exulting the 1960’s Mountie for his work, which would not be allowed today. Bit of a dichotomy for you I would say.
“Now there was no reason for him to do that and there were no probably grounds but guess what he found a box of beer and being underage gave the driver a ticket.” Well, you just do not know that do you? Perhaps your progeny was known to the authorities in that her and / or her compadres were ‘known’ to illegally possess and transport alcohol. Perhaps someone phoned the police and told them, like the liquor store where it was probably bought illegally by one of them or for one of them. Not enough evidence for Judge D to rule.
The search was not illegal because you do not have full possession of the facts and unless a Court decides it is after reviewing it. In the above noted case, obviously the Judge felt that the transgression was minor enough to let the evidence stand, which is his prerogative.
I feel so much safer now with all the laws protecting us from the police. Certainly would not want them stopping known gangsters in their blinged out behemoths and searching them for the machine pistols they seem to spray the citizenry with at will.
“I hate to see anyone get off on a technicality but the law is the law and everyone must respect and obey it, including the RCMP.” Remember that statement when you read how long it takes for due process to unfold on your favorite whipping post the odd RCMP offenders.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
18 
42
This is why you have to “get consent” first and convince the suspect that it’s in his best interest to cooperate.
I am all for democracy and freedom, but I won’t be sleeping any worse tonight because of this case.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
21 
8