6 ms·

> limited to interrogations about alcohol/drug intoxication (edit: and a few matters regarding the vehicle itself) unless something else is offered/observed. W

> limited to interrogations about alcohol/drug intoxication (edit: and a few matters regarding the vehicle itself) unless something else is offered/observed. Which in effect means that they are unlimited. They make wide use of drug detecting dogs. If a drug dog indicates you might have contraband, that allows further intervention. It is widely known that drug dogs can , worst case, be trained to hit when a hit is not present. Best case they have a bond with their handlers that tells them that the handler wants there to be a hit, whether the handler consciously conveys that or not. This increases the odds that there will be a hit. Drug dogs are basically a override-the-law get you into jail free card, and any system that allows them as evidence of probable cause basically does not require probable cause.

epgui 4y ago
No, in effect this is not an unlimited power. Just ask any Canadian criminal law lawyer what they do all day. I don’t know about K9 units, but I’ve never seen one anywhere in Canada, except maybe at an airport once.
- Teever 4y ago
  They brought a bunch of police dogs into my Canadian high school for a 'random' search. I saw the principal come into the class I was in and point out a specific kid that she wanted searched. The distrust of authority that I learned from that experience is without a doubt the greatest lesson I ever got in high school.
  - JeremyBanks 4y ago
    [dead]
  - epgui 4y ago
    That is for sure suboptimal, but it is not necessarily representative of most Canadians’ experiences.
    - asfarley 4y ago
      This is representative of my experience.
    - throwaway59596 4y ago
      Why does that matter? The point is that it can happen and it's normal enough that the principal just did it and the police just followed up, no questions asked no eyebrows batted. That it's hidden enough is worse, not better for Canada, if it was outrageous there would be outrage and everyone would know - but nobody cares.
      - 867-5309 4y ago
        to bat one's eyebrow
      - epgui 4y ago
        It matters because more than zero bad things happen to people in every single country, so we have no choice but to rely on statistics to get a sense for what countries are like and how to compare them. It's this sense of what countries are like in general, statistically, that allows us to say anything intelligent about things like this.
vkou 4y ago
> Drug dogs are basically a override-the-law get you into jail free card, and any system that allows them as evidence of probable cause basically does not require probable cause. Police dogs manufacturing search warrants is more of an American problem than a Canadian problem. You might have more rights on paper in the US, but in many respects, you have more of them in practice in Canada. The letter of the law matters way less than how the law is implemented in practice. Public culture, legal culture, political culture, and policing culture all play into this. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution, yet there's no shortage of people who have been executed for 'reaching for an (often imaginary) gun' during a 'routine traffic stop' that, oddly enough, predominantly targets minorities...
- int_19h 4y ago
  The biggest problem in Canada is that whole "notwithstanding" backdoor in the Charter. And it's not even a hypothetical concern, given how it's been used in e.g. Quebec.
- jonahrd 4y ago
  One of the biggest problems is Canada is the assumption of country wide immunity from systemic issues because "it's worse in the States". This prevents lots of real change from happening and allows lots of really bad laws to exist.
  - sekh60 4y ago
    I am Canadian, living in Canada and I really hate this. We constantly compare ourselves to the States. Why can't we compare to a country more with aspiring to? Like one of the Nordics?
    - red-iron-pine 4y ago
      Canada is bigger, way more diverse, has way more population, and is structurally, historically, and culturally similar to the US. And speaking as someone who has lived or worked in a couple of those countries: it ain't all rainbows and cupcakes. Denmark ain't exactly crazy about foreigners, plus there was just an article here about how ruthless they are with data surveillance. There isn't a huge market, jobs are tight, and "tall poppy syndrome" is a thing -- which is a problem for the HN wannabe-tech-mogul crowd. They're not the most open people -- kind, nice, polite -- but also closed off; its not easy to make friends. They're not crazy about immigrants, and there is very much a "for us, by us" mentality; high immigration in Sweden is, like in much of Europe, not popular with large segments of the population. Outside of some cultural artifacts like Rugbrod or the Copenhagen obsession with fermenting every kind of food, there isn't much you can't get in Canada. Slightly less fat, slightly better dressed, and the English was often better.
hutzlibu 4y ago
"Drug dogs" Fun fact: Most police "drug dogs" you see in public are actually normal dogs, because "drug dogs" are quite expensive and can only be put to service for a limited time (and they stress out with lots of noise and people). But if the people think the dog is a drug dog, then their reaction is often telling enough. (but I don't know, if they do this in canada to get the "allows further intervention", but this is usually a grey area anyway)
- ed25519FUUU 4y ago
  Where do you get this from? The training of a drug dog would be one of the first things challenged in a criminal drug case and would terminal to establishing probable cause.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    My information is EU (germany) based and was a general remark, not specific to those traffic controls (and whatever specific rules they have). Here what matters in court is, have drugs been found. If the cops think someone looks suspicious enough, they can search him. And if drugs were found, than this is all that matters in court, because obviously the cops were right with their suspicion if something was found. I don't see how that evidence could be challenged in court? (No one said, that the dog is a drug dog. People just assume it and the police uses that assumption)
    - idiotsecant 4y ago
      >Here what matters in court is, have drugs been found. If the cops think someone looks suspicious enough, they can search him. And if drugs were found, than this is all that matters in court, That is entirely incorrect. German law follows a similar structure to the United States regarding the admissibility of evidence that was collected improperly. Evidence obtained in violation of the law, particularly by infringement of the privacy of the home or person, may be excluded from the trial if the violation is deemed to have a significant impact on the reliability of the evidence. The standard of probable cause in German law is known as "concrete indications of a specific criminal offense" (konkrete Anhaltspunkte für eine bestimmte Straftat). It requires officials to have concrete indications that a specific criminal offense has been committed or is about to be committed before they can conduct a search or seizure.

epgui 4y ago

No, in effect this is not an unlimited power. Just ask any Canadian criminal law lawyer what they do all day. I don’t know about K9 units, but I’ve never seen one anywhere in Canada, except maybe at an airport once.

Teever 4y ago
They brought a bunch of police dogs into my Canadian high school for a 'random' search. I saw the principal come into the class I was in and point out a specific kid that she wanted searched. The distrust of authority that I learned from that experience is without a doubt the greatest lesson I ever got in high school.
- JeremyBanks 4y ago
  [dead]
- epgui 4y ago
  That is for sure suboptimal, but it is not necessarily representative of most Canadians’ experiences.
  - asfarley 4y ago
    This is representative of my experience.
  - throwaway59596 4y ago
    Why does that matter? The point is that it can happen and it's normal enough that the principal just did it and the police just followed up, no questions asked no eyebrows batted. That it's hidden enough is worse, not better for Canada, if it was outrageous there would be outrage and everyone would know - but nobody cares.
    - 867-5309 4y ago
      to bat one's eyebrow
    - epgui 4y ago
      It matters because more than zero bad things happen to people in every single country, so we have no choice but to rely on statistics to get a sense for what countries are like and how to compare them. It's this sense of what countries are like in general, statistically, that allows us to say anything intelligent about things like this.

vkou 4y ago

> Drug dogs are basically a override-the-law get you into jail free card, and any system that allows them as evidence of probable cause basically does not require probable cause. Police dogs manufacturing search warrants is more of an American problem than a Canadian problem. You might have more rights on paper in the US, but in many respects, you have more of them in practice in Canada. The letter of the law matters way less than how the law is implemented in practice. Public culture, legal culture, political culture, and policing culture all play into this. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution, yet there's no shortage of people who have been executed for 'reaching for an (often imaginary) gun' during a 'routine traffic stop' that, oddly enough, predominantly targets minorities...

int_19h 4y ago
The biggest problem in Canada is that whole "notwithstanding" backdoor in the Charter. And it's not even a hypothetical concern, given how it's been used in e.g. Quebec.
jonahrd 4y ago
One of the biggest problems is Canada is the assumption of country wide immunity from systemic issues because "it's worse in the States". This prevents lots of real change from happening and allows lots of really bad laws to exist.
- sekh60 4y ago
  I am Canadian, living in Canada and I really hate this. We constantly compare ourselves to the States. Why can't we compare to a country more with aspiring to? Like one of the Nordics?
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    Canada is bigger, way more diverse, has way more population, and is structurally, historically, and culturally similar to the US. And speaking as someone who has lived or worked in a couple of those countries: it ain't all rainbows and cupcakes. Denmark ain't exactly crazy about foreigners, plus there was just an article here about how ruthless they are with data surveillance. There isn't a huge market, jobs are tight, and "tall poppy syndrome" is a thing -- which is a problem for the HN wannabe-tech-mogul crowd. They're not the most open people -- kind, nice, polite -- but also closed off; its not easy to make friends. They're not crazy about immigrants, and there is very much a "for us, by us" mentality; high immigration in Sweden is, like in much of Europe, not popular with large segments of the population. Outside of some cultural artifacts like Rugbrod or the Copenhagen obsession with fermenting every kind of food, there isn't much you can't get in Canada. Slightly less fat, slightly better dressed, and the English was often better.

hutzlibu 4y ago

"Drug dogs" Fun fact: Most police "drug dogs" you see in public are actually normal dogs, because "drug dogs" are quite expensive and can only be put to service for a limited time (and they stress out with lots of noise and people). But if the people think the dog is a drug dog, then their reaction is often telling enough. (but I don't know, if they do this in canada to get the "allows further intervention", but this is usually a grey area anyway)

ed25519FUUU 4y ago
Where do you get this from? The training of a drug dog would be one of the first things challenged in a criminal drug case and would terminal to establishing probable cause.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  My information is EU (germany) based and was a general remark, not specific to those traffic controls (and whatever specific rules they have). Here what matters in court is, have drugs been found. If the cops think someone looks suspicious enough, they can search him. And if drugs were found, than this is all that matters in court, because obviously the cops were right with their suspicion if something was found. I don't see how that evidence could be challenged in court? (No one said, that the dog is a drug dog. People just assume it and the police uses that assumption)
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    >Here what matters in court is, have drugs been found. If the cops think someone looks suspicious enough, they can search him. And if drugs were found, than this is all that matters in court, That is entirely incorrect. German law follows a similar structure to the United States regarding the admissibility of evidence that was collected improperly. Evidence obtained in violation of the law, particularly by infringement of the privacy of the home or person, may be excluded from the trial if the violation is deemed to have a significant impact on the reliability of the evidence. The standard of probable cause in German law is known as "concrete indications of a specific criminal offense" (konkrete Anhaltspunkte für eine bestimmte Straftat). It requires officials to have concrete indications that a specific criminal offense has been committed or is about to be committed before they can conduct a search or seizure.