5 ms·

So according to the article you don't have to let them in to search your residence (although you may be held in contempt) but these fine individuals turned up w

So according to the article you don't have to let them in to search your residence (although you may be held in contempt) but these fine individuals turned up with a locksmith? IANAL but sounds like a case of bad faith if I've ever heard it. Should've forced them to use the locksmith and then had the cops charge them with burglary.

tomalpha 8y ago
I'm not familiar with Canadian law, but under UK law which I suspect is similar, this is called a Civil Search Order[0] or Anton Pillar Order. "A search order is probably the most draconian order the court can make" [1] However there is no forcible power of entry and there is no right as such to require entry, however the judge granting the order can hold you in contempt of court and jail you if you do not grant entry. An independent lawyer must be present who is not directly acting for the plaintiff to represent the subject of the order. It's very very expensive. Edit: Canadian law does appear to be based on UK law to some extent [2] [0]https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders/ https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders/ [1] https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-204-8056?originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29&comp=pluk https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-204-8056?origin... [2] https://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-guidance-for-anton-piller-orders https://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-...
- jstanley 8y ago
  From [0]: > That if the defendant is a woman living alone, that a woman must accompany those executing the order; This seems oddly sexist.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    Protecting only one group from dangers that overwhelmingly apply only to that group is not bigotry.
- dade_ 8y ago
  It says in the article that it was an Anton Pillar Order. They scewed it up though, everything said by the defendent was ruled an interrogation and thrown out. Most of these companies are not run by very bright people. Their businesses are only still here because they are a government oligarchy.
  - charlieflowers 8y ago
    > "everything said by the defendent was ruled an interrogation and thrown out." No, the article says that ruling was overturned later.
AllegedAlec 8y ago
This is why castle doctrines and stand-your-ground laws exist and should exist, imho.
- pjc50 8y ago
  So you can get shot by the police? Neither of those is ever going to give you the right to overrule a court order with a gun, and doing this in a country where people are routinely shot for mere suspicion of having a gun is extremely risky.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    It's not that simple. Castle laws and a high likelihood of any particular household being armed tends to result in the sort of shenanigans like described in TFA not happening at all because it becomes an unnecessary risk from the point of the people who are approving it. The (IMO) best example of this is abuse of no-knock search/arrest warrants. When you kick down someone's door in the middle of the night they're likely to shoot at you if they can. Yelling "police" won't be enough to prevent someone from shooting back a lot of the time because people don't generally have the best situational awareness after being woken up at 3AM by a bang. The police are well aware of that any no-knock warrant has a chance of killing on of their own which would result in a lot of questions being asked and a need to justify to the public their actions that lead to the death of the officer. Getting officers killed because you wanted to play cowboy when it wasn't strictly necessary is not something the police unions and professional associations take kindly to. No chief wants that on their record. This is why sloppy/unjustifiable use of no-knock warrants is rarer places where a large chunk of the population (particularly the lower classes) are armed. It's not about you personally being able to shoot back. It's about having the ability to and how that affects the risk/reward equation for the people calling the shots who have to think at the statistical level. Back to the article, a judge is much less likely to give the ok for some corporate lawyers, a locksmith and a bailiff (i.e. not a bunch of uniformed police officers) to go poke around someone's property if there's a chance that it could provoke an armed confrontation (which could end in a way that could come back to bite him/her). If Mr. Lackman resided in a "rough" trailer park in a state with castle doctrine and constitutional carry (which as an aside tend to actually be almost free of violent crime) I guarantee at least one employee in the courtroom would have giggled a little when the corporate lawyers described where they wanted to go and what they want to do. It would be like someone asking to release some tiny bug fix on prod on Black Friday, sure it would probably work fine and nothing would go wrong but you'd get laughed at for asking because it's just not worth the risk.

tomalpha 8y ago

I'm not familiar with Canadian law, but under UK law which I suspect is similar, this is called a Civil Search Order[0] or Anton Pillar Order. "A search order is probably the most draconian order the court can make" [1] However there is no forcible power of entry and there is no right as such to require entry, however the judge granting the order can hold you in contempt of court and jail you if you do not grant entry. An independent lawyer must be present who is not directly acting for the plaintiff to represent the subject of the order. It's very very expensive. Edit: Canadian law does appear to be based on UK law to some extent [2] [0]https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders/ https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders/ [1] https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-204-8056?originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29&comp=pluk https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-204-8056?origin... [2] https://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-guidance-for-anton-piller-orders https://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-...

jstanley 8y ago
From [0]: > That if the defendant is a woman living alone, that a woman must accompany those executing the order; This seems oddly sexist.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Protecting only one group from dangers that overwhelmingly apply only to that group is not bigotry.
dade_ 8y ago
It says in the article that it was an Anton Pillar Order. They scewed it up though, everything said by the defendent was ruled an interrogation and thrown out. Most of these companies are not run by very bright people. Their businesses are only still here because they are a government oligarchy.
- charlieflowers 8y ago
  > "everything said by the defendent was ruled an interrogation and thrown out." No, the article says that ruling was overturned later.

AllegedAlec 8y ago

This is why castle doctrines and stand-your-ground laws exist and should exist, imho.

pjc50 8y ago
So you can get shot by the police? Neither of those is ever going to give you the right to overrule a court order with a gun, and doing this in a country where people are routinely shot for mere suspicion of having a gun is extremely risky.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  It's not that simple. Castle laws and a high likelihood of any particular household being armed tends to result in the sort of shenanigans like described in TFA not happening at all because it becomes an unnecessary risk from the point of the people who are approving it. The (IMO) best example of this is abuse of no-knock search/arrest warrants. When you kick down someone's door in the middle of the night they're likely to shoot at you if they can. Yelling "police" won't be enough to prevent someone from shooting back a lot of the time because people don't generally have the best situational awareness after being woken up at 3AM by a bang. The police are well aware of that any no-knock warrant has a chance of killing on of their own which would result in a lot of questions being asked and a need to justify to the public their actions that lead to the death of the officer. Getting officers killed because you wanted to play cowboy when it wasn't strictly necessary is not something the police unions and professional associations take kindly to. No chief wants that on their record. This is why sloppy/unjustifiable use of no-knock warrants is rarer places where a large chunk of the population (particularly the lower classes) are armed. It's not about you personally being able to shoot back. It's about having the ability to and how that affects the risk/reward equation for the people calling the shots who have to think at the statistical level. Back to the article, a judge is much less likely to give the ok for some corporate lawyers, a locksmith and a bailiff (i.e. not a bunch of uniformed police officers) to go poke around someone's property if there's a chance that it could provoke an armed confrontation (which could end in a way that could come back to bite him/her). If Mr. Lackman resided in a "rough" trailer park in a state with castle doctrine and constitutional carry (which as an aside tend to actually be almost free of violent crime) I guarantee at least one employee in the courtroom would have giggled a little when the corporate lawyers described where they wanted to go and what they want to do. It would be like someone asking to release some tiny bug fix on prod on Black Friday, sure it would probably work fine and nothing would go wrong but you'd get laughed at for asking because it's just not worth the risk.