Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Even if third party evidence wasn't admissible, the prosecution can just retrace Anon's steps and talk to the same people and collect it themselves.

That's not really true. If the witnesses would not have spoken to police but the police know from a third party that the witnesses have evidence/testimony critical to the case--they cannot coerce the witnesses to speak unless there was some kind of really damning evidence that the police had originally found which proved the witnesses were there.

It's entirely likely as well that entire avenues of investigation are closed off to the RCMP now because of Anonymous' actions due to the potential for a defense of tainted evidence/illegally obtained evidence.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Even if third party evidence wasn't admissible, the prosecution can just retrace Anon's steps and talk to the same people and collect it themselves.

It's entirely likely as well that entire avenues of investigation are closed off to the RCMP now because of Anonymous' actions due to the potential for a defense of tainted evidence/illegally obtained evidence.

However it's still more then they had previously considering the case had been closed.

Has there been any more actual movement on the case, since it was "solved"?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Even if third party evidence wasn't admissible, the prosecution can just retrace Anon's steps and talk to the same people and collect it themselves.

That's not really true. If the witnesses would not have spoken to police but the police know from a third party that the witnesses have evidence/testimony critical to the case--they cannot coerce the witnesses to speak unless there was some kind of really damning evidence that the police had originally found which proved the witnesses were there.

It's entirely likely as well that entire avenues of investigation are closed off to the RCMP now because of Anonymous' actions due to the potential for a defense of tainted evidence/illegally obtained evidence.

Canadian law works quite a bit different then American law. I think most of this is admissible once it's been vetted by the Prosecution. Not only do we not have Miranda Rights, but depending on the severity of the crime constitutional "rights" can and have been waived by the courts to allow for prosecution. Now I'm not exactly sure how this will play out in our courts, but I doubt that the evidence that Anonymous has collected will be proclaimed inadmissible in its entirety.

Ratbarf wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Even if third party evidence wasn't admissible, the prosecution can just retrace Anon's steps and talk to the same people and collect it themselves.

That's not really true. If the witnesses would not have spoken to police but the police know from a third party that the witnesses have evidence/testimony critical to the case--they cannot coerce the witnesses to speak unless there was some kind of really damning evidence that the police had originally found which proved the witnesses were there.

It's entirely likely as well that entire avenues of investigation are closed off to the RCMP now because of Anonymous' actions due to the potential for a defense of tainted evidence/illegally obtained evidence.

Canadian law works quite a bit different then American law. I think most of this is admissible once it's been vetted by the Prosecution. Not only do we not have Miranda Rights, but depending on the severity of the crime constitutional "rights" can and have been waived by the courts to allow for prosecution. Now I'm not exactly sure how this will play out in our courts, but I doubt that the evidence that Anonymous has collected will be proclaimed inadmissible in its entirety.

We do have the Miranda rights, we just don't call them that, because we never had someone named Miranda set the precedent.

Not really, there have been various times times where a case that would have been thrown out in the States due to Miranda Rights has been allowed to continue in Canada. Off the top of my head there was a fellow who was illegally searched and they found a large amount of drugs on him, if it were the states that evidence would be inadmissible, but the judge here stated that because of the severity of the crime and the threat that the drugs represented it was ruled admissible. Also, in Canada you are not guaranteed immediate access to a lawyer, in addition to this the police can still question you before your lawyer shows up even after you have asked for one. That little piece of awesome popped up during that affair where the husband of a Conservative MP was pulled over while he was supposedly drunk and they found cocaine on his person. Can't remember the name immediately.

Ratbarf wrote:Not really, there have been various times times where a case that would have been thrown out in the States due to Miranda Rights has been allowed to continue in Canada. Off the top of my head there was a fellow who was illegally searched and they found a large amount of drugs on him, if it were the states that evidence would be inadmissible, but the judge here stated that because of the severity of the crime and the threat that the drugs represented it was ruled admissible. Also, in Canada you are not guaranteed immediate access to a lawyer, in addition to this the police can still question you before your lawyer shows up even after you have asked for one. That little piece of awesome popped up during that affair where the husband of a Conservative MP was pulled over while he was supposedly drunk and they found cocaine on his person. Can't remember the name immediately.

This is the Charter Rights Warning that police read off of a card at the time of arrest:

I am arresting you for (charge). It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. You may call any lawyer you want. There is a 24-hour telephone service available which provides a legal aid duty lawyer who can give you legal advice in private. This advice is given without charge and the lawyer can explain the legal aid plan to you. If you wish to contact a legal aid duty lawyer, I can provide you with a telephone number. Do you understand? Do you want to call a lawyer? You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence."

 Ratbarf wrote:
Not really, there have been various times times where a case that would have been thrown out in the States due to Miranda Rights has been allowed to continue in Canada

Failure to Mirandize doesn't always irrevocably taint a case here, either - there was a ruling fairly recently that weakened it somewhat.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:Not really, there have been various times times where a case that would have been thrown out in the States due to Miranda Rights has been allowed to continue in Canada. Off the top of my head there was a fellow who was illegally searched and they found a large amount of drugs on him, if it were the states that evidence would be inadmissible, but the judge here stated that because of the severity of the crime and the threat that the drugs represented it was ruled admissible. Also, in Canada you are not guaranteed immediate access to a lawyer, in addition to this the police can still question you before your lawyer shows up even after you have asked for one. That little piece of awesome popped up during that affair where the husband of a Conservative MP was pulled over while he was supposedly drunk and they found cocaine on his person. Can't remember the name immediately.

This is the Charter Rights Warning that police read off of a card at the time of arrest:

I am arresting you for (charge). It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. You may call any lawyer you want. There is a 24-hour telephone service available which provides a legal aid duty lawyer who can give you legal advice in private. This advice is given without charge and the lawyer can explain the legal aid plan to you. If you wish to contact a legal aid duty lawyer, I can provide you with a telephone number. Do you understand? Do you want to call a lawyer? You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence."

And just because they read them doesn't mean they will always act on them. In the Rahim Jaffer case, at least what I remember from the CBC coverage, it was several hours before they let him phone his lawyer, and then it was several more hours until his lawyer showed up. The police interrogated him the whole time. When his defence team tried to say that this was a breach of his rights to counsel the judge pretty much said it didn't matter, and that the police were not committing an unconstitutional act for continuing the interrogation after he had asked for a lawyer and before the lawyer showed up. Also, while this is contested, the cocaine was found in his jacket pocket which was not on him when he was frisked for the DUI. Meaning that if it was indeed not on his person it would have been an illegal search.

Ratbarf wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:Not really, there have been various times times where a case that would have been thrown out in the States due to Miranda Rights has been allowed to continue in Canada. Off the top of my head there was a fellow who was illegally searched and they found a large amount of drugs on him, if it were the states that evidence would be inadmissible, but the judge here stated that because of the severity of the crime and the threat that the drugs represented it was ruled admissible. Also, in Canada you are not guaranteed immediate access to a lawyer, in addition to this the police can still question you before your lawyer shows up even after you have asked for one. That little piece of awesome popped up during that affair where the husband of a Conservative MP was pulled over while he was supposedly drunk and they found cocaine on his person. Can't remember the name immediately.

This is the Charter Rights Warning that police read off of a card at the time of arrest:

I am arresting you for (charge). It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. You may call any lawyer you want. There is a 24-hour telephone service available which provides a legal aid duty lawyer who can give you legal advice in private. This advice is given without charge and the lawyer can explain the legal aid plan to you. If you wish to contact a legal aid duty lawyer, I can provide you with a telephone number. Do you understand? Do you want to call a lawyer? You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence."

And just because they read them doesn't mean they will always act on them. In the Rahim Jaffer case, at least what I remember from the CBC coverage, it was several hours before they let him phone his lawyer, and then it was several more hours until his lawyer showed up. The police interrogated him the whole time. When his defence team tried to say that this was a breach of his rights to counsel the judge pretty much said it didn't matter, and that the police were not committing an unconstitutional act for continuing the interrogation after he had asked for a lawyer and before the lawyer showed up. Also, while this is contested, the cocaine was found in his jacket pocket which was not on him when he was frisked for the DUI. Meaning that if it was indeed not on his person it would have been an illegal search.

Uh... the police aren't required to vanish like ghosts when the arrested says "lawyer". That phenomenon is a product of television. All the police are required to do is read you your relevant Charter rights and provide you with a phone call, a lawyer or both.

Now, I can't speak to the specific case that you're referring to (but I could read through it if you've got a LexusNexus citation), however it doesn't really sound like any illegal search took place. If you're arrested, the police have very wide-ranging powers of search.

The contention was that his Jacket was searched after the fact, and was not part of the search that goes along with being arrested for a DUI.

And once a person asks for counsel the police were supposed to stop interrogation, they could still hold the person, and they could still talk to them, but they couldn't interrogate them.

Ratbarf wrote:The contention was that his Jacket was searched after the fact, and was not part of the search that goes along with being arrested for a DUI.

And once a person asks for counsel the police were supposed to stop interrogation, they could still hold the person, and they could still talk to them, but they couldn't interrogate them.

A jacket being searched following a DUI arrest is perfectly legal.

I think I'm gonna need a citation for that last claim. Particularly when you take into account that the Reid Interrogation Technique is merely talking to them, with a sympathetic and relatable tone.