• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Gun charge tossed

Slim

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
410
This is why we have gang-bangers on the street and the police are unable to do a thing about them...Thanks to Libewral judges.

Gun charge tossed

Judge rules search was illegal

Scarborough man walked free yesterday after a judge ruled that a search of his car trunk -- which turned up a sawed-off shotgun -- was illegal.

Justice Ted Matlow declared the search in December 2003 of the trunk of a car driven by Christopher Alkins was unconstitutional.

Alkins, 21, who has no criminal record or links to gangs, was also acquitted of possession of a pellet gun and kitchen knife he had stuffed down his pants because the Crown hadn't proved he intended to use them as weapons.

OFFICERS WERE CHECKING

Police found a sawed-off shotgun, a baseball bat and several changes of clothing in the trunk of the car occupied by Alkins, two youths and Andre Martin, believed to be a Cougar Court gang member who was banned from having weapons and from being in that area.

Officers from 42 Division were checking up on Martin shortly after Dec. 13, 2003, Matlow said, when they spotted him, Alkins, and the two backseat passengers smoking marijuana.

When Martin was ordered out of the car, an officer discovered a knife handle jutting from his pants and another weapon.

Martin was arrested for possessing a concealed weapon.

ENOUGH FOR ARRESTS

When Alkins was ordered out from behind the wheel, what looked like a handgun -- it turned out to be a pellet gun -- fell from his pant leg to the ground and he was arrested.

Matlow ruled that since the police had enough evidence against Martin and Alkins for the arrests, the officers weren't entitled to search the trunk on a "hunch" that more weapons might be concealed there.

"In my view, the search was based only on hunch and speculation," Matlow stated.

Police earlier had located a photo showing Martin posing with a "sawed-off shotgun protruding from his pants," Matlow said.

The Crown law office is now reviewing the case before deciding whether to launch an appeal.

Matlow's decision means all four accused walked virtually unscathed from the arrest.

Martin pleaded guilty to a weapons charge, received a suspended sentence and probation and signed an affidavit stating the shotgun in the trunk wasn't his.

 
That just isn't right. He must of had some big shot lawyer that cost alto of money.It just goes to show how corrupt the system is.
 
ASLT TPR said:
That just isn't right. He must of had some big shot lawyer that cost alto of money.It just goes to show how corrupt the system is.

betcha he had a court appointed lawyer and a really stupid Liberal Judge...

why do i fear that when I do get hired as a cop I'm going to get really disenfranchised?
 
i don't know what im saying, maybe it was ruthless judges are better overall than liberal ones
 
All those who work in law enforcement who are suprised at this, raise your hand.........yep, thats what I thought.



One judge, making up our Countries laws,..on the fly.
 
Slim said:
Matlow ruled that since the police had enough evidence against Martin and Alkins for the arrests, the officers weren't entitled to search the trunk on a "hunch" that more weapons might be concealed there.

I guess he's never heard of probable cause.
 
I think we really need to start electing all of our judges - the prospect of losing their jobs in a year or two would undoubtedly provide some incentive to punish criminals.
 
when I went to court house in Vancouver for a school trip, a lawyer told us judges can't be fired.
 
GO!!! said:
I think we really need to start electing all of our judges - the prospect of losing their jobs in a year or two would undoubtedly provide some incentive to punish criminals.

GO!!! I agree 100%. Just like the Yanks. Everyone gets elected, on a set schedule. Let a gangbanger with a gun go free, a la TO this week, and you don't have a job next time around. Impeachment and recall should be the recourse for ANY elected position, town to federal. In a lot of cases, appointed civil servants only feel responsibility to their own wallet and the sugar daddy that appointed them, not the populace they serve.
 
Another vote re: electing judges...These people seem to be living in a vacuum. They seem to be involved in some diabolical contest to see who can toss cases for the most pathetic reasons.
Where is the common sense? Where is the concern for the greater good of society? Where is the disincentive for criminal behaviour?  The judicial system seems to be totally out of touch with the human values of fairness, actual justice and consequences that befit the actions.
What is wrong with an eye for an eye?
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
One judge, making up our Countries laws,..on the fly.

As much as I'd like to jump on the bandwagon here......I can't.

Although judges can be criticized mightily for not adhering to the spirit of the criminal code or the desires of a great majority of Canadians, in this case, it appears he was......right.

I would chalk this up to lazy policing. Beat into the heads of most coppers right from academy are the rules for Search and Seizure. In this case, the cops would have had a right to seize anything in plain view. Only if they had a compelling reason to look in the locked trunk would they be allowed to do so. (for example, a witness said someone was locked in it)

Otherwise, the cops are required to obtain a Search Warrant. This would require one guy to do all the work, while at least one other cop having to stay by the vehicle and provide continuity. Depending on the speed and skill of the officer, and the availability of a Justice of the Peace to approve the warrant, it could take as long as six hours.

If it's a busy Friday night, with calls stacked up, there is little chance a supervisor would agree to allow the temporary loss of two constables on what appeared to be a 'hunch'. On the other hand, it could have been a slow night and the attending officers just didn't want to be hassled with a warrant. From my experience, there are many officers who have not done a Warrant in 20 years of service. It can be scary stuff to some, all that typing.....

Bottom line, the introduction of the Charter has changed the rules of policing, and continues to do so with new ruling after ruling. Conducting a thorough search of a vehicle without a Warrant following the arrest of the occupants should be a no brainier, but under the laws of Canada, it requires a Warrant. A new government will hopefully amend the Criminal Code to make it more police friendly, but....those officers must have known what they were doing was wrong.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

That all said, many officers have conducted 'illegal' searches. Problem is, if they find something, they can't use it because it constitutes a 'charter breach'. I know of one incident where a 'dial-a-doper' was pulled over on a traffic stop. Based only on a hunch, the officer checked the glove box and found over $3000 and a couple of rocks of crack. Knowing that it was an illegal search and wouldn't stand up in court, but knowing that the bad guy likely wasn't aware of the nuances of Canadian criminal law, the officer played "let's make a deal".

Behind door one was a Criminal Code charge for Possession for the purpose of Trafficking (likely, of course, not to stand up in court). Behind door two was the drainage disposal of the Cocaine, followed up by an incredibly generous 'donation' to the Salvation Army.

The bad guy took door two, and the Salvation Army received one of its more generous donations for the week at 0300 on a Tuesday night.  ;D
 
I don't understand how, with a guy with a cleaver shoved down his skiddies, in the company of a fellon, The police aren't well founded in suspecting more weapons are about.  If I read this correctly, a drunk can rob a liquor store, drive his car and get pulled over and arrested for DWI.  Any evidence pointing to an armed robbery would be out of bounds if it's in the trunk.  After all, he's already been arrested, the shot-clock has to be reset, no?
 
Not quite. A Warrentless search is justified only in the most extreme circumstances. (i.e. immediate possibility of grievous bodily harm). Only items in plain view can be seized. Otherwise, the evidence is available, providing a Search Warrant is first obtained. The Warrant would be relatively easy to obtain, it just takes time and effort.

Unfortunately, a locked trunk or glove box is viewed with the same sanctity as a dwelling house under Canadian law.

Likewise, even a simple impaired charge can take an officer off the street for over four hours on a busy friday night, due to all the requirements for procedure and paperwork brought on by case law. That's why, at least in my city, an impaired driver has an exceptional chance of being let off with only a 24 hour suspension.   

As mentioned, these laws can be re-written to be more police friendly, it just takes a pro-active Justice minister.
 
"He agreed to register his firearm so we let him go, to set a good example to other gun ownders!"
 
kcdist said:
...That all said, many officers have conducted 'illegal' searches. Problem is, if they find something, they can't use it because it constitutes a 'charter breach'. I know of one incident where a 'dial-a-doper' was pulled over on a traffic stop. Based only on a hunch, the officer checked the glove box and found over $3000 and a couple of rocks of crack. Knowing that it was an illegal search and wouldn't stand up in court, but knowing that the bad guy likely wasn't aware of the nuances of Canadian criminal law, the officer played "let's make a deal".

Behind door one was a Criminal Code charge for Possession for the purpose of Trafficking (likely, of course, not to stand up in court). Behind door two was the drainage disposal of the Cocaine, followed up by an incredibly generous 'donation' to the Salvation Army.

The bad guy took door two, and the Salvation Army received one of its more generous donations for the week at 0300 on a Tuesday night.  ;D...

Cheers to street justice!
 
something needs to be done to correct problems like this...

it's illegal to search the trunk of a car when you've just arrested the driver for having a concealed weapon but it's legal to tow someone's truck at 0300 on a sunday and ticket them for $168 + impound fees cause they are an inch too close to a driveway, not even blocking it...

The wrong people are getting targeted by those making the laws.

 
c_canuk said:
something needs to be done to correct problems like this...

it's illegal to search the trunk of a car when you've just arrested the driver for having a concealed weapon but it's legal to tow someone's truck at 0300 on a sunday and ticket them for $168 + impound fees cause they are an inch too close to a driveway, not even blocking it...

The wrong people are getting targeted by those making the laws.

I totally agree.

The parking gestapo in Edmonton can find you for any infraction - but the police are unable to bust a crack house with anything less than the chief of police himself walking in and buying a rock.

So much for "serve and protect".
 
Back
Top