Canada - police state with harsh sentences

[phreak]

If you believe I'm wrong - read this:


http://www.saultstar.com/2015/06/04/man-busted-with-1m-in-backpack-sentenced-to-three-years

 

[Vitargo]

further east you go the harsher it gets. Winnipeg in particular is a bad place to get caught

 

[vancity_cowboy]

3 years is harsh?

remember 3 years = 2 years or so with parole, plus time and a half off for time already served - hell, he'll be out by Christmas :frusty:

 

[Lets Review]

There are signs that say: "Patrons subject to search" at all kinds of venues. Odds of an actual search are pretty slim (other than an airport or international travel).
If you're dumb enough to seek out security and say "Hey officer, don't search me in public" you're not cut out to be a courier.

 

[deathreborn]

save the hassle. with that much dough on the line, rent a car.

 

[ziggyzoo]

He broke the law, he was profiting through many others who were breaking the law. 3 years? He will be out in 14 months, no biggie. On to the next.

 

[phreak]

3 years is harsh?

remember 3 years = 2 years or so with parole, plus time and a half off for time already served - hell, he'll be out by Christmas :frusty:

You are missing the point: the guy did not commit any crime and should not have been arrested in the first place:

- carrying any amount of cash in a backpack is not a crime
- the guy was not crossing the border - so he didn't have to report the amount of more than $10K
- he didn't have a criminal record and nobody reported stolen cash (theft, robbery, etc)
- the guy acted as an honest person, not a criminal, when he showed the cash to the security guard - he was not asked to do so, and baggage search on a bus is not something routinely done anyway
- there was absolutely no reason to call cops since there was no crime
- cops can't just search a person without a probable cause: having 1 million + in cash is not the one
- the guy was illegally searched, arrested and interrogated - cops should be prosecuted and he should be let go and compensated for all the trouble
- the whole case is obviously forged
- even if we admit the guy is guilty of something, it's so minor that I can't understand how the judge even considered the jail time

 

[overdone]

You are missing the point

and you missed that hooked on phonics class at the local Y

Speckert approached a security officer and "advised he had something very valuable in his bag and did not want to be searched in public," said the statement of facts. The security officer escorted him to a meeting room, where Speckert opened his backpack, which was full of bundled money.

Speckert told the security officer "that everything was OK, he could travel with that amount of money" and that he was going to use the money to buy a house at auction.

Police were called and Speckert consented to a search of his backpack, court heard.

he wasn't illegally searched

he walked up to the security guard, asked to have his backpack searched in private, then agreed to a search by police when they arrived

bottomline, this guy is a moron

who asks to be searched when walking around with a million of dirty money you've been payed to take to Van?

who takes the bus? :doh:

the guy's a cheapskate too

and you're eligible for release after 1/3 of your sentence in most cases, so most don't do anywhere near their actual sentence, so 3yrs is hardly harsh

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

and you missed that hooked on phonics class at the local Y

Speckert approached a security officer and "advised he had something very valuable in his bag and did not want to be searched in public," said the statement of facts. The security officer escorted him to a meeting room, where Speckert opened his backpack, which was full of bundled money.

Speckert told the security officer "that everything was OK, he could travel with that amount of money" and that he was going to use the money to buy a house at auction.

Police were called and Speckert consented to a search of his backpack, court heard.

he wasn't illegally searched

he walked up to the security guard, asked to have his backpack searched in private, then agreed to a search by police when they arrived

bottomline, this guy is a moron

who asks to be searched when walking around with a million of dirty money you've been payed to take to Van?

who takes the bus? :doh:

the guy's a cheapskate too

and you're eligible for release after 1/3 of your sentence in most cases, so most don't do anywhere near their actual sentence, so 3yrs is hardly harsh

1/6th on a first offence with no priors, if I am not mistaken...so 36 months sentence is six months served.

 

[rick hunter]

You are missing the point: the guy did not commit any crime and should not have been arrested in the first place:

- carrying any amount of cash in a backpack is not a crime
- the guy was not crossing the border - so he didn't have to report the amount of more than $10K
- he didn't have a criminal record and nobody reported stolen cash (theft, robbery, etc)
- the guy acted as an honest person, not a criminal, when he showed the cash to the security guard - he was not asked to do so, and baggage search on a bus is not something routinely done anyway
- there was absolutely no reason to call cops since there was no crime
- cops can't just search a person without a probable cause: having 1 million + in cash is not the one
- the guy was illegally searched, arrested and interrogated - cops should be prosecuted and he should be let go and compensated for all the trouble
- the whole case is obviously forged
- even if we admit the guy is guilty of something, it's so minor that I can't understand how the judge even considered the jail time

Did you even read the article? He CONSENTED to be searched by the police. Yes it's totally normal for people to be carrying 1 million dollars in a backpack with a one way ticket, nothing suspicious about that. He also couldn't explain where his "house" that he was going to buy here in Vancouver was located. They had text messages saying he would be paid $26,000 for delivering the money. Anybody with half a brain would deduce that the money was from proceeds of crime.

 

[Vitargo]

1/6th on a first offence with no priors, if I am not mistaken...so 36 months sentence is six months served.

They got rid of the 1/6th a few years back. 1/3rd then your eligible to go up for parole. Most people with shorter federal sentences (2yrs +a day) will end up doing 2/3rds of their sentence

 

[phreak]

Did you even read the article? He CONSENTED to be searched by the police. Yes it's totally normal for people to be carrying 1 million dollars in a backpack with a one way ticket, nothing suspicious about that. He also couldn't explain where his "house" that he was going to buy here in Vancouver was located. They had text messages saying he would be paid $26,000 for delivering the money. Anybody with half a brain would deduce that the money was from proceeds of crime.

Yes, I did read the article in full. The fact that he consented to be searched doesn't change anything, besides providing the evidence that he acted as a law abiding citizen. After the cops searched his backpack and didn't find any gun/bomb/axe/knife, that should have been the end of the story. The guy should not have been interrogated as he didn't do anything wrong, forget about criminal. There is nothing criminal about getting paid for delivery - that's what UPS/Fedex legitimately do. Cash is not drugs/guns - there is no law that you can't have cash on you exceeding certain amount.

There is a huge difference between being suspicious and having a probable cause. If you are a cop and you see a black guy wearing a hoody and driving a high end vehicle, following your logic you can suspect he is a drug dealer, stop and search his car for drugs? Right? WRONG! May be he is a drug dealer, but your suspicion is not enough to stop and search him. If your were tipped off that a specific guy would be trafficking drugs, this may be a probable cause.

It may be unusual for people to carry a million in cash on them, but it is not criminal either. If some freak sold his house and prefers to carry the money in cash, it is perfectly legal. And this fact alone is not the reason to search/question him about anything unless cops are looking for bank robbery suspect, for example.

The guy didn't have to explain anything, and he was likely framed just because he was an idiot. His lawyers are likely a part of this scheme as I can't even imagine any sane lawyer would agree with 3 years in jail for his client who didn't commit any crime. It doesn't matter if he may serve less time - the problem is that innocent people should not be in jail at all.

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I don't expect you to know anything about the law, but you really have no business just making shit up about it and writing like you know what you're talking about. You clearly don't.

 

[phreak]

I don't expect you to know anything about the law, but you really have no business just making shit up about it and writing like you know what you're talking about. You clearly don't.

So why don't you educate me instead of making general statements?

What I can see in the above case is not the law but lawlessness.

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

So why don't you educate me instead of making general statements?
I can see in the above case is not the law but lawlessness.

Because from your post history I suspect you of being a troll and I have better ways to spend my time.

If you actually want to learn how Canadian criminal law works, there are a ton of resources available to you on the internet. If you ask me intelligent questions, I'll try to answer them for you.

 

[rick hunter]

Yes, I did read the article in full. The fact that he consented to be searched doesn't change anything, besides providing the evidence that he acted as a law abiding citizen. After the cops searched his backpack and didn't find any gun/bomb/axe/knife, that should have been the end of the story. The guy should not have been interrogated as he didn't do anything wrong, forget about criminal. There is nothing criminal about getting paid for delivery - that's what UPS/Fedex legitimately do. Cash is not drugs/guns - there is no law that you can't have cash on you exceeding certain amount.

There is a huge difference between being suspicious and having a probable cause. If you are a cop and you see a black guy wearing a hoody and driving a high end vehicle, following your logic you can suspect he is a drug dealer, stop and search his car for drugs? Right? WRONG! May be he is a drug dealer, but your suspicion is not enough to stop and search him. If your were tipped off that a specific guy would be trafficking drugs, this may be a probable cause.

It may be unusual for people to carry a million in cash on them, but it is not criminal either. If some freak sold his house and prefers to carry the money in cash, it is perfectly legal. And this fact alone is not the reason to search/question him about anything unless cops are looking for bank robbery suspect, for example.

The guy didn't have to explain anything, and he was likely framed just because he was an idiot. His lawyers are likely a part of this scheme as I can't even imagine any sane lawyer would agree with 3 years in jail for his client who didn't commit any crime. It doesn't matter if he may serve less time - the problem is that innocent people should not be in jail at all.

The police would have obviously asked him why he was carrying 1.3 million in a backpack. If he provided a logical explanation then he would have been free to leave but he didn't any good reasons. I wonder why? How was he framed? By carrying the backpack? It's quite obvious he was just the courier.

 

[phreak]

The police would have obviously asked him why he was carrying 1.3 million in a backpack. If he provided a logical explanation then he would have been free to leave but he didn't any good reasons. I wonder why? How was he framed? By carrying the backpack? It's quite obvious he was just the courier.

He didn't have to explain anything since he didn't break any laws by carrying cash on him, and was not under any obligation to provide reasons as the burden of proof legally was not on him. He didn't have to prove to cops that he was innocent (he was not doing anything illegal in the first place) - it's exactly the other way around: cops were supposed to have 'probable cause' to arrest/interrogate him.

That's what police state is all about: citizens are always under suspicion for no valid reason and have to prove to authorities they are innocent.

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

They got rid of the 1/6th a few years back. 1/3rd then your eligible to go up for parole. Most people with shorter federal sentences (2yrs +a day) will end up doing 2/3rds of their sentence

Thanks for clearing that up for me! Wasn't aware!

 

[phreak]

Because from your post history I suspect you of being a troll and I have better ways to spend my time.

If you actually want to learn how Canadian criminal law works, there are a ton of resources available to you on the internet. If you ask me intelligent questions, I'll try to answer them for you.

Calling somebody a 'troll' is hardly an intelligent way to start a conversation... But anyway, since you seem to be an expert in the criminal law, could you clarify the following points:

- Is it illegal in any way to carry $1 million in cash in a backpack within Canada (you are not crossing the border)?
- Is it legal to arrest/interrogate a person, who is not doing anything illegal, based on pure suspicions (e.g. this guy has lots of cash on him - he must be doing something illegal) without any serious probable cause?

 

[Pantherdash]

What you don't understand phreak is that he unwittingly acted as a witness against himself by clearly providing consent to search his backpack. The police were served this up on a silver platter and ate it. No, there is nothing illegal about moving about the country with a backpack stuffed with more than a million dollars in cash BUT there is something clearly suspicious about it, which the police naturally had to ask. Well, since it was easy to get consent to search his backpack it was probably just as easy to get consent to search through his phone text messages to reveal evidence that he was moving cash for organized crime. Being part of or facilitating the operations of organized crime IS against the law in Canada.

Had he rented a car in the first place or even just kept his mouth shut and invoked his right to remain silent, he may have avoided all this trouble. The guy above was right. This courier is an idiot!

Panther