Most people want them to thoroughly investigate all 911 calls, "sorry it was a miss-dial" does not cover it..... Many here say they want people punished for their gun crimes to the fullest extent of the law, but why in this case are people looking for loopholes to get him off? Could it be that he is not a black kid in the city?
What "most people" want changes suddenly when they find themselves facing police demanding to search their homes or vehicles in the absence of reasonable grounds. And a 911 misdial is not reasonable grounds: they need reason to believe a specific offence has been committed.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
You have a Charter right to be secure from unjustified searches. Granted, we don't know the full details here. But this is definitely a situation that raises Charter concerns.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Catch 22.... Did he dial it ? Is it his phone? Did he take it from someone after the 911 call? How will they know if they don't look? Lets just take everyone's word at the door,...... nothing to see here , move on. Could end up being a, 'put the lotion in the basket' , scenario.
Best you do a little more research !! Searches due to 911 calls have been ruled to have not violated the charter numerous times.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
A 911 call is one of the scenarios that justifies a warrantless search, for good reason. The search has to be reasonable. In other words, searching dresser drawers would not. As I said before, once entry was gained and an offence was in plain view,( Plain View Doctrine, ), and police were or should be satisfied that no one was in danger, they can seize that evidence. However, a warrant would be required to continue with further search of the residence......been there, done that.
R. V Shea comes to mind. Granted, in this case the officer was with a building supervisor when entry was gained because of a broken pipe. The officer observed drugs in plain view. Those drugs were seized, a warrant was obtained resulting in further search and seizure. It boiled down to the officer being there lawfully, witnessing an offence in plain view. The court held there was no charter breach.
That's what I thought of when I read this article. How many times did they demand to look in the house before he finally agreed. Common sense would tell you that any homeowner would have defended the position that it was an accidental call and no need to search.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Absolutely!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
So if I decide to pull out all of my firearms tonight at home and admire/clean/tinker with them, you're saying I should be charged with a storage violation? They're not in storage at that point. Does it make a difference if I have 4 guns or 50?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
Come on , are you are going to take dozens of guns out of safe storage at the same time to clean or admire them, in rooms all over the house? If you are going to do that do not call 911. I bet he did not have enough locks or locked storage for all his guns. Sounds like you are trying to justify, or excuse his unsafe storage. Why?
Where a crime is reported, there are obvious grounds. But no crime was reported in this instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
I'm just leaving for Algonquin & no time to check but I believe there is a recent SCC ruling limiting searches pursuant to a 911 call. 2017 or 18?
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Have a good trip. When you get back, check out Godoy.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
A dropped 911 call, guy refuses entry by police.....no crime reported...
This case reinforces warrantless entry, albeit very different circumstances. With the OP case, the reasonableness of entry will be a huge factor. The fact that buddy allowed police entry, eliminates that argument.
The moral of the story....don’t call 911, even by mistake, with your guns laying all over the place !!!