| ▲ | post-it 9 hours ago |
| I don't really see an issue with this section. A judge still needs to issue a warrant, they can also additionally waive the requirement that the cop gives you a copy right away, in special circumstances. Like are you envisioning a "I totally have a warrant but I don't have to give it to you" type situation? I think it's fairly unlikely, and you would likely be able to get the search ruled inadmissible if a cop tried it. |
|
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Are you familiar with parallel construction? That's what this is for. If they have a warrant and show it to you, it says what they can search and why. If they don't tell you what they're searching for and why, they can look for anything, and then construct a separate scenario which just happens to expose the thing they knew would be there from the first fishing expedition. They then use this (usually circumstantial) evidence to accuse you of a crime, and they can win, even if you didn't commit a crime, but it looks like you did. And now they can do it with digital information, automatically, behind the scenes, without your knowledge. (or they can take your laptop and phone and do it then) |
| |
| ▲ | 8note 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | i know this is an american thing, but does it actually happen in Caanda? | | |
| ▲ | raydev 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Respectfully, whether it "actually happens" is irrelevant. We want to prevent it from happening. | |
| ▲ | kwar13 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | one of those 'does it happen' vs. 'can it happen'. the latter is all that matters. | | |
| |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But the warrant still has to originally exist with, presumably, a timestamp that shows it existed prior to the search. And modification of the timestamp or lack of such a feature would be a good way to get the evidence thrown out? | | |
| ▲ | freeone3000 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s not how evidence works in Canada. Illegally obtained evidence is still evidence - you simply also have a tort against the officer for breaching your rights. | | |
| ▲ | dataflow 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It would be inadmissible if the court deems it to impact the fairness of the trial, no? https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec... | | |
| ▲ | godelski 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You used a conditional so I assume you also know how such a system can fail. It's not hard to figure out how that can be exploited, right? You can't rely on that conditional being executed perfectly every time, even without adversarial actors. But why ignore adversarial actors? | |
| ▲ | sunir 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe. Courts aren’t magic machines that do the right thing. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mnkyprskbd 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The existence of a category of warrants that allows operation that is indistinguishable from warrantless searches creates a kind of legal hazard and personal risk that is hard to overlook. Police lie on the regular. | | | |
| ▲ | dataflow 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't get why people downvoted you, this is a very reasonable question. | | |
| ▲ | godelski 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There were two commenters that responded 15 minutes prior to your comment. I'd suggest starting there if you want to understand. Then if you disagree with those, you can comment and actually contribute to the conversation ;) | |
| ▲ | linkregister 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I agree with you. However, talking about downvotes is not interesting and against guidelines. Improperly down voted comments typically even out in the end anyway. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 1123581321 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s a huge problem. The warrant is the document the absence of which lets the public know something wrong is being done to them. A warrant is not just a term for judicial approval. The public must have the ability to easily verify police conduct is appropriate, and it must match the cadence of the police work. |
| |
| ▲ | dataflow 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The warrant is the document the absence of which lets the public know Er, the warrant is still there to be examined later, no? It's just not necessarily shown to the subject at the time of investigation. | | |
| ▲ | 1123581321 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Hence my second paragraph. “Don’t worry, we have a warrant” leaves the public vulnerable to misconduct, actions that potentially cannot be reversed or sufficiently compensated. | | |
| ▲ | Incipient 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wouldn't having a warrant, with the purpose redacted - if that's the concern, be a good balance of "proof of legitimacy" but also keeping some presumably sensitive information private? | | |
| |
| ▲ | godelski 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A warrant usually isn't a free pass to search everything. They are often narrow. The warrant is the receipt. Even if you believe it's fine most of the time I'm pretty certain most people would feel uncomfortable if they went to the grocery store and weren't offered one. You throw it away most of the time, but have you never needed it? Mistakes happen. The stakes are a lot higher here. The cost of mistakes are higher. The incentives for abuse are higher. The cost of abuse is lower. And what's the downside of the person being searched having the warrant? Why does it need to be secret? | |
| ▲ | lazide 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How can you be sure, when no one ever knows it is there to examine it? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | _heimdall 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't define what such special situations are. It leaves the determination of providing the warrant to the suspect entirely to a judgement call of the court. There may well be reasonable scenarios a majority of people would agree that providing a warrant isn't feasible, but that needs to be codified in law in more detail than whenever the judge deems it so. |
|
| ▲ | b00ty4breakfast 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| why even allow for the possibility of misuse? what is the utility of this little addendum? |
|
| ▲ | layla5alive 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why... would you think this is unlikely? Have... you seen videos of ICE agents claiming to have warrants when they don't? |
|
| ▲ | mpalmer 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If the statute doesn't lay out exactly where exceptions can be made, it can be abused. And everyone should be skeptical enough of government power that they mentally switch out "can" with "will". |
