Q: When can the police search me?

14 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Well, in Ontario, Canada:

A: In general, the police can search you and your belongings only if you are under arrest or if you consent to being searched (there are rare exceptions, such as when you are entering Canada). You are never obligated to consent to being searched. If the police begin to search you, however, you should not try to stop them since this may result in you being charged with a criminal offense.
Source: Know Your Rights | Anthony De Marco, Criminal Defence Lawyer | Toronto Ontario

News Flash Police can now search any device (that's not password protected - as if a password will help us:rolleyes:, they know their way around that one) if you have been arrested. Yes, they can search our cell phones, ipads, computers etc.

We have NO rights - this is B.S.

ETA - More on cell phones, text messages, emails etc: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02...ontario-court/
  • Profile picture of the author socialentry
    If you encrypt your computers correctly, the police cannot find out what's on your HDD (unless of course you tell them).

    In the US, being forced to give your password is a violation of some amendment on self-incrimination, but in Canada I am not sure. I once asked the Q to a law professor at my uni but he didn't know the answer (not that I blame him, it was somewhat of a random question).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7771483].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

      If you encrypt your computers correctly, the police cannot find out what's on your HDD (unless of course you tell them).

      In the US, being forced to give your password is a violation of some amendment on self-incrimination, but in Canada I am not sure. I once asked the Q to a law professor at my uni but he didn't know the answer (not that I blame him, it was somewhat of a random question).
      A judge recently determined that it was legal for them to FORCE you, in the US! I don't know what the final outcome was.

      BTW in the US, they have a stupid way of doing things. A lawyer can twist things all over the place to fit another case. This is called a "legal theory". THAT can then be used to claim the outcome of the past case to become the outcome for THIS one, in which case it is called a precedent. Of course, the judge has to agree. And HIS/or HER word is LITERALLY considered LAW! It can only be overridden by appeal in a higher court. Of course, if you get to the US supreme court they may decide not to hear it. If they do, and decide against you, you are pretty much out of luck.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7771545].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        A judge recently determined that it was legal for them to FORCE you, in the US! I don't know what the final outcome was.

        BTW in the US, they have a stupid way of doing things. A lawyer can twist things all over the place to fit another case. This is called a "legal theory". THAT can then be used to claim the outcome of the past case to become the outcome for THIS one, in which case it is called a precedent. Of course, the judge has to agree. And HIS/or HER word is LITERALLY considered LAW! It can only be overridden by appeal in a higher court. Of course, if you get to the US supreme court they may decide not to hear it. If they do, and decide against you, you are pretty much out of luck.

        Steve
        Ever heard of the NDAA? The police can seize you, detain you indefinitely without charges and with no access to a lawyer - and now kill you without trial if the big guy says okay. The court put a hold on that one and it is being ruled on either today or yesterday - not seen the outcome of that one yet.

        Also - they can just seize anything electronic you own if you are within 100 miles of any border...for no reason and not give it back. Legalized stealing. We're in hella trouble in this country right now.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7772211].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          Ever heard of the NDAA? The police can seize you, detain you indefinitely without charges and with no access to a lawyer - and now kill you without trial if the big guy says okay. The court put a hold on that one and it is being ruled on either today or yesterday - not seen the outcome of that one yet.

          Also - they can just seize anything electronic you own if you are within 100 miles of any border...for no reason and not give it back. Legalized stealing. We're in hella trouble in this country right now.
          Oh yeah, I forgot to mention it! I was talking about the "official" law as of like 20 years ago. WHO KNOWS what they are ALLOWED to do now! Being encouraged and allowed is VERY different from established official, even if the difference seems meaningless at this point. And what I was talking about has been tried all the way to the supreme court.

          BTW that minor distinction I am talking about? It IS becoming broader! On the 10th and 13th of this month, for example, something happened that may start a trend, and it is affecting new york. Don't worry though, their reasons are specific in scope and not related to geography, so they may soon affect california, massachusetts, and several other states. It will be interesting.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7772759].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Ken Leatherman
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            Oh yeah, I forgot to mention it! I was talking about the "official" law as of like 20 years ago. WHO KNOWS what they are ALLOWED to do now! Being encouraged and allowed is VERY different from established official, even if the difference seems meaningless at this point. And what I was talking about has been tried all the way to the supreme court.

            BTW that minor distinction I am talking about? It IS becoming broader! On the 10th and 13th of this month, for example, something happened that may start a trend, and it is affecting new york. Don't worry though, their reasons are specific in scope and not related to geography, so they may soon affect california, massachusetts, and several other states. It will be interesting.

            Steve
            Hey Steve,

            I'm quite interested in knowing about what happened on the 10th and 13th and what trend you see as happening. Appreciate you taking the time to be more specific.

            If you don't want to be specific in this thread, please send me a P.M.

            Thanks in advance.

            Ken
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7778261].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author waterotter
          Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

          The government is your friend. Remember that.
          Haha, Ken! Do you have inside information we don't know about?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7773686].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    In the US, using your template:

    A: In general, the police can search you and your belongings only if you are under arrest, if you consent to being searched, if you are at some portal(border, airport, etc...), they have a search warrant, they have an arrest warrant, they feel it is "an emergency", they "think" they see contraband, or you do/say certain things that make them suspicious. You are never obligated to consent to being searched, but they may detain you. If the police begin to search you, however, you should not try to stop them since this may result in you being charged with a criminal offense.

    An example is that if they see something that looks like the handle of a gun through a window in your car, they can look for it. If they find it, a warning stop could become a felony misdemeanor, and they could arrest you for a concealed weapon! If that SAME weapon were legal in the area, on ON the seat unloaded and no ammo was found in the cabin, they would search, question you, and LET YOU GO!

    ALSO, because a robber once got off because he was in the US illegally and claimed improprieties, they are to tell you about your rights(Called the Miranda Warnings, after the aforementioned robber). If they don't, especially if you confess, they may be found to be at fault, and forced to let you go.

    So yeah, the rights don't mean much HERE either! They can not PHYSICALLY search your car in most cases, but they ARE allowed to search it VISUALLY fro all they can see on the outside, even through closed windows. They are the allowed to INSTANTLY use any suspicion created by that to allow them to PHYSICALLY search.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7771519].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CS7
    Originally Posted by waterotter View Post

    Well, in Ontario, Canada:



    Source: Know Your Rights | Anthony De Marco, Criminal Defence Lawyer | Toronto Ontario

    News Flash Police can now search any device (that's not password protected - as if a password will help us:rolleyes:, they know their way around that one) if you have been arrested. Yes, they can search our cell phones, ipads, computers etc.

    We have NO rights - this is B.S.


    ETA - More on cell phones, text messages, emails etc: Police can look through a password-less phone, says Ontario court | Canada | News | National Post


    Right on, got pulled over for a simple driving infraction and had my phone taken because they wanted to "send it away for investigation":confused:
    Signature
    LUCRATIVE MIND - IM / ALTERNATIVE LIFESYLE BLOG
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7772540].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author waterotter
      Originally Posted by CS7 View Post

      Right on, got pulled over for a simple driving infraction and had my phone taken because they wanted to "send it away for investigation":confused:
      I'd be retaining a lawyer or legal aide, what ever it takes.

      I don't think we've seen the end of this as it's being appealled by a Toronto lawyer, whose name escapes me at the moment.

      Our Constitution says police cannot search and sieze your property without a warrant.

      Thing is, police can arrest you without cause and hold you for 48-72 hours. One wants to have a squeeky clean record as once you've been detained, rest assured, they will find/manufactyre something to charge you with.

      We're on a slippery slope, headed to h*ll
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7773510].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    I blame MADD for at least part of this mess. Arresting people for things they might do and demanding their bodily fluids is patently unconstitutional, but the American public laps it up like dogs at mud puddles.
    They started drug testing for jobs way before MADD got their hooks into the system. And that one is a hard one because drunks do just kill and maim all over hell and back when behind a wheel - but the usurpation of rights that law caused has allowed quite a snowball effect to go on. I'm against texting while driving, too - but feel it would be much more effective to just shoot someone doing it so they can't kill someone else than to make more laws about it. Yeah JK, (kinda).
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7774259].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    I blame MADD for at least part of this mess. Arresting people for things they might do and demanding their bodily fluids is patently unconstitutional, but the American public laps it up like dogs at mud puddles.
    In MOST cases such people are stopped because of erratic actions. In almost all, treatment is based on perceived ability. So it isn't for something you might do, but something you are very likely to do. You could refuse to give up fluids, but then you would be presumed guilty.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7778678].message }}

Trending Topics