wtf, texas cops pulling people over in canada, just coz they're cops and they think that gives them the right. power triping assholes stepping past their boundarys, that's what they are.
Cop wins RCMP settlement after highway search
Last Updated Jan 28 2005 07:00 PM PST
CBC News
VANCOUVER â?? A Vancouver man has won an out-of-court settlement from the RCMP after an incident in which he says he was illegally searched.
David Laing says police overstepped the law when they stopped his car, decided he was driving under the influence of marijuana, and searched his vehicle and two-year-old son.
Under Canadian law, that kind of search is illegal.
What upset Laing even more is that some the officers he tangled with were actually American police officers.
Last spring, he was driving on a highway near Hope. He turned a corner and a man in an orange traffic vest in the middle of the road motioned him to pull over. In a heavy Texas accent, the man asked for Laing's identification.
Laing asked if the man was an American. The man answered that he was, and that he was performing a B.C. road check.
"I said, are you a police officer? Who are you to be detaining me?"
The man was a Texas state trooper. The RCMP brought the Texans up to help them learn how to identify drug traffickers.
Laing refused to let the officers search his car. He knew that under Canadian law, police officers don't have the right to perform that kind of search.
Laing is a Vancouver cop.
Less than a minute after Laing drove away, another Texas trooper â?? paired with an RCMP officer â?? pulled him over.
This time Laing was told he was under the influence of marijuana. Laing's lawyer, Marilyn Sandford, says it was all preposterous.
Laing agreed to the search, but was told he couldn't take his son from the vehicle. He was horrified as he watched the Mountie search his two-year-old.
The police found no drugs, and despite saying he was impaired just moments earlier, let him go.
RCMP spokesperson Const. John Ward says the Texas troopers profiling program provides great help to the Mounties.
"The Americans do a lot of this, and have been doing it for quite some time. So there's a lot of opportunity on both sides of the border to become closer."
Laing and his lawyer disagree. They say that when it comes to narcotics, American attitudes and Canadian laws are quite different.
"We have different freedoms than they have," Laing says. "You don't want to mesh too much. You don't want your police meshing to the point where we start taking on other police jurisidiction's policies."
The RCMP settled with Laing out of court when he threatened to sue for unlawful detention. But the Mounties defend the search, saying Laing was suspicious because his eyelashes were fluttering and his eyes were flashing.
Murray Mollard of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association says police shouldn't be depending on clues like that. He says that it's not a scientifically reliable method.
The RCMP also says Laing was evasive when asked about his job. Laing says he didn't want to tell them he's a Vancouver cop.
"To me it's irrelevant," he says. "I'm a father with his son going to look at property. I'm not in the course of duty â?? I don't deserve privileges of any type."
Mollard says Laing's case presents a series of concerns â?? from using unreliable profiling techniques to a wrongful vehicle search, not to mention using an American police officer to pull over Canadians.
He says his association will be writing the RCMP to complain about the profiling techniques and remind them of the rights Canadians have under the law.
Ferno wrote:man what an outrage. what gives them the right to search his car without a warrant or even permission? a wrong look?
Hell I'd be outraged if it happened here in the states.
Ever hear of "probable cause"? Fluttering eyelashes? Flashing eyes? The victim was prolly so mad he couldn't see straight.
If I were the Vancouver cop, when it was all over I'd pull my badge and tell them how I'd be keeping an eye out for them.
Roid you made it sound like the texas cops were acting on their own. You shouldn't blame them for doing what they were invited by the RCMP's to do. It's the canadian police that created the situation.
They basically invited a bunch of hotdog cowboys up their to show them how to run a roadblock...what did they expect...tea and crumpets?
i suppose it could be possible that the canadian RCMP actually told the Texan cops that they were authorised* to search ppl, and the texans knew no better.
*which they wern't, and not even the RCMP is authorised to do that. NO-ONE IS
roid wrote:...i suppose it could be possible that the canadian RCMP actually told the Texan cops that they were authorised* to search ppl, and the texans knew no better....
Naa, I doubt that. I bet both parties knew it wasn't legal and the cowboys didn't care because it wasn't their home turf. Not likely they would be fired over it because they could claim the host's were at fault and vise versa, the RCMP could lay blame on a bunch of out of control americans, not a hard story to sell these days
Sounds like the cops were working the system just like the bad guys do. I love the irony that it took a cop being a victim of his own kind to blow the cover off of it
i loved how he didn't tell them though. showing him as polar opposite to a power triping cop.
The RCMP also says Laing was evasive when asked about his job. Laing says he didn't want to tell them he's a Vancouver cop.
"To me it's irrelevant," he says. "I'm a father with his son going to look at property. I'm not in the course of duty â?? I don't deserve privileges of any type."
love the implied idealism there. guy trusts the system so much that he doesn't feel the need to pull rank. he's completely comfortable being on the recieving end of the very same justice (theoretically) that he deals out to others while on duty.
do unto others eh
testi: two possibilities. either he does or the VPD does.
Laing refused to let the officers search his car. He knew that under Canadian law, police officers don't have the right to perform that kind of search.
Just because he's an american police officer does not give him the right to disregard canadian law.
They basically invited a bunch of hotdog cowboys up their to show them how to run a roadblock...what did they expect...tea and crumpets?
They expected the texan cops to still follow our laws.
They basically invited a bunch of hotdog cowboys up their to show them how to run a roadblock...what did they expect...tea and crumpets?
They expected the texan cops to still follow our laws.
I would think that is the answer they give the newspapers, but really, the canadian cops know how to follow canadian laws already, right....
So the real answer is, they want the cowboys to show them how they profile druggies back in Texas, which is what they did, that's what they were hired to do.
How the RCMP use that example and also deal with canadian law isn't the cowboys concern at that point.
TheVancouverCop wrote:The RCMP also says Laing was evasive when asked about his job. Laing says he didn't want to tell them he's a Vancouver cop.
"To me it's irrelevant," he says. "I'm a father with his son going to look at property. I'm not in the course of duty â?? I don't deserve privileges of any type."
oh, the world would be a better place if cops had this attitude.
So the real answer is, they want the cowboys to show them how they profile druggies back in Texas, which is what they did, that's what they were hired to do.
and this also includes searching without a warrant?
The point is; the texans were hired to advise, not to tell the RCMP officer to disregard the laws they're obligated to uphold.
It doesn't matter who owns the car. it's still private property.
There wouldn't be a settlement if there wasn't any wrongdoing.
Probable Cause (at least in Mich) allows police to visually look into the cars interior and if something illegal is observed than the officers have the right to search the car. If nothing is observed (and fluttering eyeballs are not illegal) the car may not be searched without a search warrant. A police officer may ask to look in the trunk of your car, but you are not required to allow the officer to do so if nothing illegal was found in the passenger compartment.
What is strange about the Canadian incident is the RCMP allowing the Texans to actually use unsuspecting citizens as test subjects and order Canadian citizens to allow a search of their car. Then again what do you expect from a cash strapped Mounty police force where 500 million of their budget a year goes to register and control firearms. Seems quirky that troopers from a state where firearms are freely owned and carried are used by a liberal run country to "teach" their constabulary on the fine points of eyeballing the locals. Imagine here if you were stopped by a Mountie and ordered to allow them access to your vehicle for no reason. Me, I'd be getting a good barrister.
Writer of the article wrote:Laing agreed to the search . . .
In the U.S., consent means no warrant required, no probable cause required, no reasonable suspicion required -- under federal law and in every jurisdiction I know of.
Aha!!! The old "consent" exception to the warrant requirement.
"Aha!!! The Old Exception to the Consent Exception -- Searching Outside the Scope of Consent!!!"
Which would probably be why the guy was pissed off. It's not like a police officer to be completely ignorant of what can and can't be done under the law.
Ferno wrote:"Aha!!! The Old Exception to the Consent Exception -- Searching Outside the Scope of Consent!!!"
Which would probably be why the guy was pissed off. It's not like a police officer to be completely ignorant of what can and can't be done under the law.
Except ...!!! For the Good Faith exception to the exclusionary rule, a rule which would normally forbid the introduction of evidence obtained during certain improper searches ... UNLESS the officer was acting in "good faith".
AHAAAAA!!! The old Good Faith Exception to the exclusionary rule penalty for searches outside the scope of consent!!!!
Getting frustrated yet? Try being a cop, I say.
I know they didn't find any evidence. But Fourth Amendment law in the U.S. (searches and seizures) is kind of a mess. The Exclusionary Rule and the "Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule" are a couple of judge-made doctrines (they forgot they weren't the legislature), found nowhere in the Constitution. There are bunches and bunches more.
