Regarding warrantless searches and access ... reading the text of the bill (OP link) warrants seem to be required. Simple, right? Well, no, this is a recently inserted block of text in the bill (confirm at the link above): Exception (2. 7)(b) However, a copy of the warrant is not required to be given to a person under subsection (2. 6) if the judge or justice who issues the warrant sets aside the requirement in respe…
Without reading the bill, this sentennce seems to refer to the requirement to _give the person a copy of the warrant_, not the requirement for the government to obtain a warrant from a judge or justice
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)…
I don't see the problem with this. It's inadvisable to try to stop the police from doing whatever they want to do if they assert that they have the right to do it. You then get the lawyers involved and sort it out afterwards. Comparing the timestamp on the warrant to the time of the police action should hopefully determine whether parallel construction is taking place.
Your parallel construction is still too linear; this isn't git history. If they get a warrant AND tell you about it, the warrant dictates what they can look at, what you have to share, etc. Now they can look at anything because you have no idea what is off limits. If they find something unrelated they don't have to act on it immediately; they can then look for motivating reasons to get a warrant targeting an area they know will turn out. They go fishing, but for next time.
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.
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...
my understanding: within the context of that specific action; the evidence still exists. If there is less clarity about how and when it was collected though, there is far more opportunity to use broad evidence obtained in the periphery of a undisclosed warrant in other contexts.
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?
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.
...and are allowed to lie within narrow and specific contexts, which seems a "balance of rights" scenario. My fear in this case is that a lie of omission is far more dangerous (specifically for misuse) than a specific & explicitly lie.
Regarding warrantless searches and access ... reading the text of the bill (OP link) warrants seem to be required. Simple, right? Well, no, this is a recently inserted block of text in the bill (confirm at the link above): Exception (2. 7)(b) However, a copy of the warrant is not required to be given to a person under subsection (2. 6) if the judge or justice who issues the warrant sets aside the requirement in respe…
Is Canada (greatly) defunct? Many canucks around the world that I met seem to be of this opinion, but I've never been there and only know Canadians as hard workers.
Meeting expats from any nation will hold a bias untoward the place they're from, so you're asking a poisoned well how thirsty it is.
Canadians have no rights that the government can't override, unlike the US where the Constitution grants God-given rights over and above the government. Pierre Trudeau built in a safeguard so that the Canadian government or provinces can override whatever rights they want as they deem fit. They also have the War Measures Act or the Emergencies Act which they've also used to override any rights that Canadians have. Bu…
> the Constitution grants God-given rights over and above the government.
Which are they: God-given or granted by the constitution? No-one in any country has rights that cannot be taken away.
I'm not sure why you are holding the US as a shining example here. There has been a long history of warrantless searches everyone knows about.
And why are you making false claims about the Canadian constitution? You can easily check that the scope of the notwithstanding clause is limited.
What ever happened to hanging around, being a nuisance, and asking them questions? The real problem is cops are scared to cop. A detective used to show up around a place and just make their presence known. That was enough to notify you of investigation prematurely. Now, in the digital surveillance age, they can just sit in the basement eating Cheetos and phone in a SWAT.
What happened? We collectively over the course of time decided that the individual right not to be “harassed”, valid or not, overrides the ability to behave in such a manner. That happened because other officers proved they could not be trusted to exercise such power responsibly. “Being a nuisance” is a toe-length away from “harassing an ordinary citizen” when you don’t actually have proof. So, harassing a citizen to…
Is that really the case though? I'm not really sure I can think of any major cultural shifts or specific incidences that have changed Canadian law enforcement in the way that you describe.
How did these kinds of things happen in Canada and how do they relate specifically to bill C-22?
Thanks! I've moved that link to the top and put https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-r... in the top text.
I'm somewhat concerned with the level of discourse in these comments; there's frankly a _lot_ of, well, ignorant americans talking about the civics of a country they clearly know nothing about. Would there be any chance of having a short note in the top text to the effect of “please keep in mind when you comment that you're discussing a foreign country that, in spite of the cultural similarity, does not work the same…
> ignorant americans
You're crossing into nationalistic flamebait if not an outright slur with that. This is not ok on HN, regardless of nationality, so please don't.
Low-quality comments (especially generic tangents) are always a problem in threads on controversial topics. Trying to address that is one of the core moderation tasks on HN, and we're quite dedicated to it. But the question needs to be framed without putting down groups of others.
Thanks! I've moved that link to the top and put https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-r... in the top text.
Can you change the title? It's far more inflammatory than the content, and people here are reacting solely to it.
Yes, sorry I didn't get to this when the article was on the front page. The problem is that HN's title limit is 80 chars and it's not obvious how to shorten that one.
What happened? We collectively over the course of time decided that the individual right not to be “harassed”, valid or not, overrides the ability to behave in such a manner. That happened because other officers proved they could not be trusted to exercise such power responsibly. “Being a nuisance” is a toe-length away from “harassing an ordinary citizen” when you don’t actually have proof. So, harassing a citizen to…
Bad apples… Yeah, it’s what happened. It’s not what has to happen.
> Bad apples…
As always, if you are going to use this expression, you should be required to complete it.