Fucking Judges

[Cock Throppled]

As much a hate The Conservatives I am getting fed up with constant stories like the following. Maybe if the Connies get a majority some of this bullshit will stop. And how did it take 4 years to reach a decision?
How is this protecting us? Courts are fucked.

If being in a car used in a kidnapping and on record as being a gang member isn't a good reason tos search a car, what is?
---------------------------------------------------
A B.C. Supreme Court judge threw out both firearms and drug charges Monday against a man named Kay Phengchanh, ruling his Charter rights were violated when police searched his vehicle in 2007 and found a .38-calibre Beretta pistol.

Phengchanh was pulled over in New Westminster for a broken mirror, but when police did a computer check, his name came back as being linked to an Asian gang and the vehicle as having been used in an earlier kidnapping in Abbotsford.

The officer called for backup and the vehicle was searched with the help of a police dog. Flaps of heroin and cocaine were found, as well as the gun, which was behind the dashboard in the pocket of a removed airbag. Justice Selwyn Romilly sided with the defence who argued police did not have grounds to search Phengchanh’s vehicle.

“Notwithstanding the fact that the items seized here included a gun and ammunition, the possession of which are serious offences, the public also expects those engaged in law enforcement to respect the rights and freedoms we all enjoy by acting within the limits of their lawful authority,” Romilly said. “I conclude that, in the long-term, the repute of the administration of justice would be adversely affected by admitting the gun, ammunition and the narcotics seized from the search of the accused’s vehicle.”

Kirk said police do their best to get charges laid in cases where firearms are found in vehicles, but they must settle sometimes for the fact the gun has been taken off the streets.

“Over a period of time, we have certainly come across more sophisticated methods of secreting firearms in vehicles that do pose a challenge for law enforcement officers,” Kirk said.

 

[grusse]

I only wish judges had to be elected.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Then you'd have judges steering their decisions to please a bloodthirsty public in order to get re-elected.

Yes indeed. The last thing we need is American-style elections of judges and prosecutors. There are just too many cases of clearing cases with the first shlub that comes along to please the electorate. Hell, it even happens here without those pressures of re-election.

 

[Cock Throppled]

It is frustrating, but what we have here is a judge following the exact letter of the law. Thats his job. The public loves to get outraged about judges being 'soft' on crime, but they're not; they're accurate and know the law inside and out. The defense lawyers take it one step further with a masterful dissection of the laws and rights.

We'd love it if the judge would just say, "Know what? Fuck it. Lets throw this shithead in jail, fuck the stoopid Charter and the little technicality's that are getting him off..." But once that starts it would be the beginning of a system plunging into corruption and we'd all be up shit creek, not just the gangsters, as the judge stated in the article.

That's bullshit. The police had every right under the Charter to search that car. Known criminal/Car used in previous kidnapping - not small crimes. What is someone had been kidnapped and in the trunk? What if somene got killed with that gun they weren't allowed to look for?

Everyone talks about opening up a crack in our Charter Rights, but that BS. We barely send anyone to prison now. Why would searching known convicted gangsters erode rights for non-criminals.

 

[wilde]

So, if you had a drunk driving conviction back in 1984 (that being a serious crime), you're all for the police pulling you over for random breath tests for the rest of your life. or you arrested for a bar fight when you were 18 so, assault & battery being a serious crime, now the police can search your car, your home, your office, tap your phone & do a body cavity search every time they encounter you on the street for the rest of your life. I'm with you buddy.... So long as those rules only apply to you.

Took the words right out of me... What's with his incessant whinning lately?

 

[Cock Throppled]

So, if you had a drunk driving conviction back in 1984 (that being a serious crime), you're all for the police pulling you over for random breath tests for the rest of your life. or you arrested for a bar fight when you were 18 so, assault & battery being a serious crime, now the police can search your car, your home, your office, tap your phone & do a body cavity search every time they encounter you on the street for the rest of your life. I'm with you buddy.... So long as those rules only apply to you.

Actually, yes, for violent crimes I think you've waived your right to Charter protection for non-violent people.
Maybe put a 10 year limit on it, but I see no erosion of rights by holding violent criminals to another standard. You wanna shoot people, sorry buddy, you now get the right to be face first against a wall any time a cop sees you.
What we have now is people violating probation and not even getting extra penalties.
Maybe that would be another incentive to not shoot/kill or maim other people. And it would be a constant reminder to stay on the right side of the law.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Actually, yes, for violent crimes I think you've waived your right to Charter protection for non-violent people.
Maybe put a 10 year limit on it, but I see no erosion of rights by holding violent criminals to another standard. You wanna shoot people, sorry buddy, you now get the right to be face first against a wall any time a cop sees you.
What we have now is people violating probation and not even getting extra penalties.
Maybe that would be another incentive to not shoot/kill or maim other people. And it would be a constant reminder to stay on the right side of the law.

The article did not state that the person pulled over had ever been convicted of any crime...merely that a database linked his name with a gang. Was he a piece of shit that should be locked up? Sure...that just means the police need to do their job better.

 

[Boneman]

That's bullshit. The police had every right under the Charter to search that car. Known criminal/Car used in previous kidnapping - not small crimes. What is someone had been kidnapped and in the trunk? What if somene got killed with that gun they weren't allowed to look for?

Everyone talks about opening up a crack in our Charter Rights, but that BS. We barely send anyone to prison now. Why would searching known convicted gangsters erode rights for non-criminals.

So you believe that if to the police you are a "known criminal" they should have carte blanche to violate your charter rights? Have you forgotten what happened to those who were "known communists" during the McCarthy era, or those who were "known saboteurs" during Stalin's purges? I could go on ad nauseum with historical examples of what your type of thinking can lead to. Do you enjoy walking on slippery slopes?

 

[bcneil]

The gun was sufficiently concealed that it required dis-assembly of the dashboard of the vehicle. .

Do we know what the vehicle actually looked like?
I can understand what the cop is thinking if he takes one look in the car and can tell the dash looks altered.
Does it make a difference in the law, compared with a stock looking dash?

 

[Man Mountain]

If being in a car used in a kidnapping and on record as being a gang member isn't a good reason tos search a car, what is?
---------------------------------------------------
A B.C. Supreme Court judge threw out both firearms and drug charges Monday against a man named Kay Phengchanh, ruling his Charter rights were violated when police searched his vehicle in 2007 and found a .38-calibre Beretta pistol.

Phengchanh was pulled over in New Westminster for a broken mirror, but when police did a computer check, his name came back as being linked to an Asian gang and the vehicle as having been used in an earlier kidnapping in Abbotsford.

When they say "an earlier kidnapping," do they mean a kidnapping that happened earlier that day? Or do they mean that the vehicle had been used in a kidnapping that was ultimately a solved case file some time in the past? Because if it's the first case, I would think that would give the police reasonable cause to search the vehicle and then I would agree with CT and Hunka. If it's the latter, then I can understand where the Judge's decision is coming from, even though I'm not sure how I feel about it.

 

[Bartdude]

I'd say constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is pretty important.

 

[Boneman]

Pretty easy to argue it the other way too Bman....Guess you're forgetting he has a gun....also a very slippery slope.

And what was the guy going to do? Disassemble the dashboard and shoot the cop? There was no threat to the cop. Now, had the guy been armed with a stapler we know what the RCMP would have done.

 

[Bartdude]

The system is designed to err on the side of our individual legal rights.

I'm okay with that.

 

[Boneman]

This case and another case that is in the news today are why I strongly support police officers being required to wear a camera and audio recording device when performing their duties.

An audio-video recording of the officer asking "what happened to your dash, can I examine that?" would have resulted in a completely different ruling from the Judge. The subsequent search of the car would have been justified. When the search is performed because the officer "knows" the person is a crook, it cannot be allowed.

We, today, had a case where the evidence leading to the arrest of people was obtained by a person who was trading the police ignoring / not even charging him for a crime for testimony that was completely fabricated. The Defense asked for a document and when the prosecutor looked at the document, it was clear the charges had to be stayed. Obviously, the Defense was aware of the contents of the document. The VPD is now on the hook for the damages awarded on the civil suit for assault by police and the false charges. The defendant will probably succeed on harassment claims should he wish to bring them.

Police officers have to realize that there are not shortcuts. Not when every cellphone is a video and audio recorder. The reality is that if some uninvolved civilian isn't making a recording, the person who is being arrested is making a recording or having a friend make a recording. Very often, there are multiple recordings from multiple angles of an incident. Police officers can no longer rely on a witness's memory being suspect or susceptible to suggestion. Courts, because of celebrated cases of "bad" expert witnesses, also don't simply accept the validity of what an expert witness says.

I agree with you entirely Al. But I would also ad that with video and audio recording the police can no longer rely, so much as in the past anyway, on their own perjury.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

It is frustrating, but what we have here is a judge following the exact letter of the law. Thats his job.

That's what I was thinking. What does this even have to do with the judge. Individual judges don't make laws but they have to make decisions on those laws. Blame the laws, blame the system but it doesn't have anything to do with the judge. In order to protect the majority of us from arbitrary searches and the abuses that would most certainly occur if police had the authority to search anyone they want, yes, that means people who do have something to hide are protected. It's a slippery slope to start making exceptions and deciding what is and is not excluded. It also makes it easier for different groups of law enforcement to come up with different interpretations on how to enforce them.


Still, when the judge's decision is based on a specific law, if you feel strongly about something, it should be that law..not the judge who's just doing what he is mandated to do. I think I'd be a lot more worried if they were ignoring the laws and their rulings were based on personal opinion. That's a really scary thought. Just read about some of the reporting on some of the Guantanamo trials for example. Very scary.