Pot-Smoking Mountie Can't Smoke In Uniform, RCMP Says

[Ken7]

So Francis was downtown Fredericton and Fredericton has its own police force, which means the RCMP don't police inside city limits. The RCMP found Francis and called the city police because that's their jurisdiction. The city police apprehended Francis. He got rowdy so they tazed him. Mental illness can make a person do all kinds of things. I wonder if they have him on a suicide watch.

I'll say it one more time.

The RCMP could have done their job even in the City. They likely (speaking from experience) decided to avoid any prejudice and therefore called the Municipal Police to deal with Francis.

This way there is no argument that he was known and was treated differently because of the negative image he displayed while in Serge smoking pot, legally or not.

Municipal and RCMP have a standing respect when they work in these situations. We had a Detachment in our City and it was not uncommon for us to leave the City or have the RCMP deal with some situations on our turf. We usually out of respect advised them of what was going on an informal level, like at coffee or midnight lunch break.

[Ken7]

in the first video, i was just looking to provide an example of the attitude towards smoke. the member was presenting an 'anti-smoke' position. the 'rights' query of the member is very interesting in my opinion though :)

the second video, illustrates in my mind a flawed situation. while it may be the position of the police and courts that the smell of marijuana is justification for arrest, i do not feel the same way. of course though, i feel this may be the reason the police chose to arrest mr. francis.

you bring to the table another very interesting issue ken7. you claimed the arrest was "lawful", did you me 'legal'?

i could see an argument for it being 'legal' but not for it being "lawful".

When speaking in legal terms, if a arrest is in question it will or will not be deemed as lawful.If it is a unlawful arrest the charge would be dismissed even if there was a large quantity of marihuana found. When saying is was lawful arrest, by law it was legal.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

a little piece from famguardian.org that cites the flawed but prevalent black's law dictionary.
the clour or spirit of the 'law' is what i am considering when i look at an arrest 'justified' by a smell that in itself is not indicative of anything at all 'illegal' or 'unlawful' on its own.

It is crucial to define the difference between legal and lawful. The generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal. Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law 1893:

Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. See legal. [Bold emphasis added]

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual

“Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24. [Bold emphasis added]

Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express). A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter does not follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. This may help you to understand why the Federal and State Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure are cited in every court petition so as to conform to legal requirements of the specific juristic persons named, e.g., “STATE OF GEORGIA” or the “U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” that rule the courts.

Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land—the law of the people—and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the present day legal courts. It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since “authority” is the “law of necessity,” 12 USC 95.

Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:

Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndG ... Lawful.htm

the 'law' says you can arrest because you smell something, but i do not believe in this day and age that an odour on its own is justification.

if an odour was the reason for mr. francis' arrest i would be very suspicious of this situation.
again, whatever mr. francis was 'investigated' for, the only charge we have is 'assault'.

[grammafreddy]

Ohferchristssakes ... quit with the nitpickin'.

[Ken7]

A judge will refer to the arrest as being a lawful arrest, go look up case law. That should keep busy finding that.

[Ken7]

A judge will refer to the arrest as being a lawful arrest, go look up case law. That should keep busy finding that.


HERE you go..now leave me alone!

Cloutier v. Langlois, [1990] 1 SCR 158 — 1990-02-01
Supreme Court of Canada — Canada (Federal)

power to search — police — frisk search — prisoner — common

[…] It is generally accepted that there is no common law right to search automatically a person who has been arrested and the Criminal Code makes no mention of such authority. […] It is the fact that the search of the person is made as incident to a lawful arrest which gives the peace officer the authority to search the person arrested. […] In fact, at common law the police power of search extended to encompass a search of the surroundings of the arrest location and the seizure of anything they found there. […]

cited by 404 documents

[dogspoiler]

If someone is prescribed pot and is taken into custody, will he be allowed to smoke up in jail ?

[Ken7]

If someone is prescribed pot and is taken into custody, will he be allowed to smoke up in jail ?

I would suggest they would, I know IF I was still working I'd make sure they could if a awaiting a trial! I'm not sure of what current policy would be as you have a no smoking policy in most all lock up centres.

[dogspoiler]

I can see where having a joint in the joint would be likely.

[my5cents]

If someone is prescribed pot and is taken into custody, will he be allowed to smoke up in jail ?

Getting off track here, but... If someone is arrested everything in their possession is checked and anything like medication is retained by the custodial authority.

Depending on the length of time that person is held, it would be up to a medical practitioner to determine if any medication is given to the inmate, I would expect that would include marijuana if in fact the person had a prescription for same.

[Liquidnails]

"Wellness check"

This is how the RCMP deals with members who step out of line. He embarrassed the force... now he pays.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

the jurisdiction issue just keeps nagging me.

and it appears others have serious concerns about this issue as well.

the story i am about to post, i would normally put in here viewtopic.php?f=27&t=50562

but is also relevant here viewtopic.php?f=28&t=53557 with regard to what we can see happening in toronto, and recent discussion in that thread.

i can think of several other threads as well were this story would fit in, but i think it is important to post it here right now.

you will have to follow the link because the site/story requires a license to copy and paste.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... standards/

[Treblehook]

The issue of "jurisdiction" in this case is one of semantics. The RCMP has jurisdiction everywhere in Canada as it's members are deemed to be peace officers anywhere and everywhere in the country. That having been said, within the boundaries of cities and towns under contract to municipal police forces, and in provinces under contract to provincial police forces [Ontario/Quebec], the RCMP normally restricts its investigative activities to Federal Statutes such as those involving drugs, explosives, etc. In addition, the RCMP does investigations into commercial crime matters everywhere across the country; immigration and customs & excise investigations, among others. It would seem that the RCMP spokesperson chose to use the word "jurisdiction" when referring to the locale where Cpl. Fraser was situated and that she undoubtedly was referring to the fact that the RCMP was respecting the fact that the area was policed under contract by the city police. It would be normal protocol, regardless of the event, for the RCMP to defer to the municipal force for any non-Federal Statute incident, and that is what appears to have occurred in this case. Whatever the circumstance was that caused the concern of the RCMP as to Fraser's well being, the members on site were astute enough to realize that they were in a no-win situation were they to approach Fraser under the Mental Health Act and that they were much better advised to allow the city police to deal with the matter, as would be normal for this or any other provincial statute. Seems that even exercising that discretion didn't protect them from all manner of assumption based criticism.

[driveangry]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#124309

It appears smoking pot didn't help him any.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

whether or not his smoking helped i could not guess, but if he killed himself, i would suggest he was bullied to death.

interesting the police feel that they should respond to one of their own in distress by bringing multiple charges against him.

would they have been so harsh if it were steroids he was using?