Castanet

Fancy wrote:do you think judges draft up the requirements for warrants?

they dont draft them, they just later decide if its beyond the legal boundries end either let it stand or toss it.
so in truth i suppose they should be allowed to.

here is more proof these laws are abused enough now!!!

Lawyers for B.C. Civil Liberties Association and media outlets, including the CBC, have won court approval to unseal secret information used to get a search warrant against a critic of the RCMP who had reported there were explicit photographs of one of its officers on a bondage website.

A judge ruled Monday that RCMP investigators were not justified in sealing the warrant they had used to search the New Westminster, B.C., home of Grant Wakefield, who was accused of criminal defamation of the officer, Cpl. Jim Brown.

Wakefield had notified Brown’s superior officers in the Coquitlam detachment of the posted photographs.

The RCMP then accused Wakefield of posting defamatory comments about Brown in the comment section of a blog, in a private e-mail and to a Twitter account with 13 followers.

During the search of Wakefield's home, RCMP officers seized computers and cellphones.

The BCCLA said the RCMP’s response appeared out of proportion to the alleged offence.

"These materials were not widely broadcast, and for that reason it is remarkable that so many public resources were used seizing a computer of a critic of the RCMP," said Michael Bozic, who argued the case for the BCCLA.

On Monday, the judge unsealed more information, including details of death threats Wakefield reported to New Westminster police that he believes came from the Coquitlam detachment.

Wakefield is now wary of dealing with police at all, said his lawyer, Michael McCubbin.

"That information was provided to the RCMP for that warrant, so now he's reluctant to deal with the RCMP or any police force he doesn’t know who he can trust," McCubbin said.

Wakefield has not been charged. The RCMP has said it is investigating Brown’s connection to the bondage photos.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... ments.html

keith1612 wrote:well i can assure you i have unfortunatly in my youth seen more than once how long it takes to get a warrant and its not much more than a 2 minute call.
i have had the missfortune of them asking if i would allow them in or they had to get a warrant and they never the front of my property and they then had it in very short time.
if warrants are getting harder and harder to get nowadays i suppose it may be because judges feel there is good reason for that.
allowing the government then to make a law going against judges would just be tossed out when challenged in supreme court.
take a look i believe they are going through some of Harpers new laws now deciding what to do.

Well once again I can see you are using hear say and conjecture to form an opinion you feel passionate about. I support your feeling for something but take the time to educate youself on what it is you are interested in. Search warrants are no easy matter and they take multiple hours to write, get approved by a judge and execute. That all said I am not in support of a person's rights being violated and I do believe there is middle ground here. The problem is people such as yourself feel its "easy" or takes a "2 min phone call" to get a warrant. To be frank that is BS, stop watching US TV shows and thinking they are fact..because you are completely wrong in this case. As I have said I have written and executed more warrants than I can count and you have not even seen the process...so speak of what you know...not what you think you know.

Trunk-Monkey wrote:

keith1612 wrote:well i can assure you i have unfortunatly in my youth seen more than once how long it takes to get a warrant and its not much more than a 2 minute call.
i have had the missfortune of them asking if i would allow them in or they had to get a warrant and they never the front of my property and they then had it in very short time.
if warrants are getting harder and harder to get nowadays i suppose it may be because judges feel there is good reason for that.
allowing the government then to make a law going against judges would just be tossed out when challenged in supreme court.
take a look i believe they are going through some of Harpers new laws now deciding what to do.

Well once again I can see you are using hear say and conjecture to form an opinion you feel passionate about. I support your feeling for something but take the time to educate youself on what it is you are interested in. Search warrants are no easy matter and they take multiple hours to write, get approved by a judge and execute. That all said I am not in support of a person's rights being violated and I do believe there is middle ground here. The problem is people such as yourself feel its "easy" or takes a "2 min phone call" to get a warrant. To be frank that is BS, stop watching US TV shows and thinking they are fact..because you are completely wrong in this case. As I have said I have written and executed more warrants than I can count and you have not even seen the process...so speak of what you know...not what you think you know.

maybe the vernon police have special connections, i have personally seen it faster than that.
feel free to post any canadian search warrant timelines that show different,
as for american tv, anyone who follows it knows the american judges are much more difficult to give warrants and throw them out for abuse much faster.
i have seen 1 warrant with misspelled names served after the specified timeframe here and it was still deemed as valid yet in the USA would have been thrown out.

keith1612 wrote:maybe the vernon police have special connections, i have personally seen it faster than that.
feel free to post any canadian search warrant timelines that show different,
as for american tv, anyone who follows it knows the american judges are much more difficult to give warrants and throw them out for abuse much faster.
i have seen 1 warrant with misspelled names served after the specified timeframe here and it was still deemed as valid yet in the USA would have been thrown out.

Maybe nothing...I have worked there...lets be clear about something and I mean no disrespect but do you know the difference between a search warrant and an arrest warrant?
Let me ask you this...have you ever written a search warrant? If the answer is no..then maybe you shouldnt comment on something you have only "heard about".
In the case you mention it is possible the warrant was written and approved prior to your knowledge of the police attempting to execute said warrant, therefor you would have no idea how long it actually took to write said warrant.

i am googling for a normal timeframe to get a warrant, not alot out there on that.
i think if a officer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt a life is at risk to imidiate physical harm he should be able to skip a warrant.
other than that i see no need for changes.
cybercrime is not new, its been around a long time now.
as for cells they should actually have more protection added as now many people use them as their main home phones.
many criminals have been caught due to the internet with todays laws, making them easier just increases the chances of error.
i can see if a officer needs to wait 6 hrs for a warrant thats unreasonable and unsafe, it should be a speedy process if everything is up and up.
isnt there always a justice of the peace available 24/7?

Trunk-Monkey wrote:Maybe nothing...I have worked there...lets be clear about something and I mean no disrespect but do you know the difference between a search warrant and an arrest warrant?
Let me ask you this...have you ever written a search warrant? If the answer is no..then maybe you shouldnt comment on something you have only "heard about".
In the case you mention it is possible the warrant was written and approved prior to your knowledge of the police attempting to execute said warrant, therefor you would have no idea how long it actually took to write said warrant.

lol ok yes i fully know the difference between a arrest warrant and a search warrant.
although its been 30 years i used to be on the wrong side of the fence and saw many of both.
no maybe my timeframe is incorrect i am not sure and im trying to get more info.
just because you wrote many search warrants doesnt mean you know how everyone has done them.
that would be like me saying because you wrote lots you could be lumped in with the many many we can post that were done corruptly or on false grounds.
i have seen blatent outright lies on them and i have seen truth.
there is good cops and bad cops etc.
the point really is do we need to reduce the questionability to get warrants, i say not a chance.

keith1612 wrote:lol ok yes i fully know the difference between a arrest warrant and a search warrant.
although its been 30 years i used to be on the wrong side of the fence and saw many of both.
no maybe my timeframe is incorrect i am not sure and im trying to get more info.
just because you wrote many search warrants doesnt mean you know how everyone has done them.
that would be like me saying because you wrote lots you could be lumped in with the many many we can post that were done corruptly or on false grounds.
i have seen blatent outright lies on them and i have seen truth.
there is good cops and bad cops etc.
the point really is do we need to reduce the questionability to get warrants, i say not a chance.

I couldn`t agree more....but that said times are a changin and the way warrants and other police tools used to execute their duties should change with them...
Regarding your ploy regarding good and bad cops....well that may be true as well but the simple fact is a judge has to be the one to determine if the info in the SW is accurate and sustainable. So pardon the expression....THAT DONT HOLD ANY WATER!

Trunk-Monkey wrote:I couldn`t agree more....but that said times are a changin and the way warrants and other police tools used to execute their duties should change with them...
Regarding your ploy regarding good and bad cops....well that may be true as well but the simple fact is a judge has to be the one to determine if the info in the SW is accurate and sustainable. So pardon the expression....THAT DONT HOLD ANY WATER!

well the way the law is made or written (as my lawyer and a judge told me) you have to prove the cop made the error lying or being malicious.
we can call a spade a spade and we both know how often they choose the said criminal over the cop.
knowing something is a outright lie still makes it hard to prove.
the system as it stands is far from perfect but its working, to open the door and remove checks and balances to me is crazy.

keith1612 wrote:well the way the law is made or written (as my lawyer and a judge told me) you have to prove the cop made the error lying or being malicious.
we can call a spade a spade and we both know how often they choose the said criminal over the cop.
knowing something is a outright lie still makes it hard to prove.
the system as it stands is far from perfect but its working, to open the door and remove checks and balances to me is crazy.

You have to realize that the new laws being proposed are not to invade on someones privacy or their rights. They are geared for making the enforcement of cyber crimes easier and thus less likely to happen. Make no mistake if there is an issue that an officer invaded someone's privacy with out proper grounds they will be taken to task. These laws are not evesdropping laws they are to make it more of a level playing field for the police. Right now the RPGs to get a warrant for most cyber crimes are very difficult to prove and therefor most cases go by the way side and victims do not get the help they deserve. The new propsed laws will help with that nothing more.

as if we need more cops online or offline ..

why dont they go join the army so they can bring freedom to the masses in other countries then we wont have to deal with them here in our own country ..

theyeti wrote:as if we need more cops online or offline ..

why dont they go join the army so they can bring freedom to the masses in other countries then we wont have to deal with them here in our own country ..

Because we have a lot of problems here in OUR COUNTRY that still need to be addressed and having too many cops isnt one of them. BTW many cops have served overseas...how about you...have you served or are you still talking about things you only heard about.

Trunk-Monkey wrote:Right now the RPGs to get a warrant for most cyber crimes are very difficult to prove and therefor most cases go by the way side and victims do not get the help they deserve.

You can either prove it or you can't. If you could you prove something you would have a warrant without question. If you cant prove anything - you are fishing.

If it wasn't relatively easy to get a warrant, how can people explain all the botched RCMP grow-op busts that have occurred in BC over the past 5 years? The most recent I can recall was a elderly couple who's neighbors said (when asked) they had their window drapes "closed more than normal" and a police officer thought he smelled marijuana "somewhere in the neighborhood", sitting somewhere on the block, in his/her cruiser. That got the police enough evidence to kick a door down.

Many examples of this across Canada.

If the police can kick a door down based on such loose info - I'm sure if there was a case where a child was in danger and it was even slightly possible a suspect could be identified, a warrant could be obtained. Judges want to help.

Of course - the police and people behind this law have yet to provide a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a death, injury or assault due to the police not being able to get a warrant "in time", in this context of cyber crimes.

I'm 100% against any sort of warrent-less surveillance online. (and otherwise, mostly)

They need to tweak the warrant system if it's taking too long for legit needs.

Encryption & other things can & do still keep the "smart' criminals hidden, anyway. Encryption tech is a never ending game of leapfrog...

Trunk-Monkey wrote:You have to realize that the new laws being proposed are not to invade on someones privacy or their rights. They are geared for making the enforcement of cyber crimes easier and thus less likely to happen. Make no mistake if there is an issue that an officer invaded someone's privacy with out proper grounds they will be taken to task. These laws are not evesdropping laws they are to make it more of a level playing field for the police. Right now the RPGs to get a warrant for most cyber crimes are very difficult to prove and therefor most cases go by the way side and victims do not get the help they deserve. The new propsed laws will help with that nothing more.

trust me to catch perverts and such i would love to say go get them with no warrants etc.
but thats me judging on my hatred of them more than my belief in civil rights.
sorry i used to but at this time there has been too many questioning things in the news to say i trust police to follow the rules.
and im sorry if that statement offends true honest cops.
we all know it only takes a few bad apples to make the basket look rotton.
i hope you guys can bring back the public opinions.
the RCMP are a long tradition in Canada and it would be good to see them stay and deserve respect.
untill the public feel safe with the added power i doubt it will fly, we will see.