COPS in BBY

[Meghan M]

Once in the massage room with a closed door, I would think you are no longer in a "public place", and the communication is private.



Attendants at MPs and Bodyrubs have to be 19 years or older.

 

[billgates27]

Ok guys, a little story here...

Picked up a SW yesterday (nothing worth writing about) and was on my way to drop her off. Pass by a unmarked cruiser on a side street and it proceeds to turn and follow me. Im suddenly thinking "OH SHIT!" I tell the SW to put on her seatbelt and tell them if they ask that I just picked her up hitchhiking. Stupid broad tells me to hurry up and turn the corner (I don't btw). Bad Idea deaking from the PoPo in my opinion.

Well... the cruiser proceeds to light me up and pull me over. The stupid broad immediately jumps outta the car and tries to walk away.... they tell her to sit her ass back down. The one cop comes up to me and tells me that he's stopping me for speeding (yah right!!). He then proceeds to play 20 questions with me... do you pick up SW's often? (to which I answer I've never knowing picked up a prostitute ever) why you sweating? (I wasn't) have you been drinking? (I hadn't) why are your eyes bloodshot? (duh.. because of my contact lenses) He's trying to make me admit to doing something illegal... such as picking up a SW for example. I stick to my story since I know theres nothing he can do and he's playing gotcha games with me. Im clean as a whistle besides a few past motor vehicle violations. He gives me the lecture about how he pulls guys over every day and he knows what I'm up to.

They cut the SW loose and he comes back and asks me if I want to change my story. I tell him I've told him my story and thats all I got to say to him. He asks me again if I want to change my story. Im like WTF?!?! I said he already has my story and thats what happened and have nothing further to say. This is where it gets good.... he says "Well then, the SW told us about how you told her to stick to the hitchhiking story and so were going to place you under arrest for obstruction of justice". As soon as he said this I was like... "Ok, I'd like to speak to counsel before I answer any more questions from you constable". I give him credit, he just said "you'll have an opportunity to speak to counsel" and then goes on to explain the dangers of Hep C, HIV, and the hazards of SW such as getting robbed. Im like WTF?!? im thinking, are you gonna arrest me or lecture me? Funny thing was, I had already thought of the possibility of spending a night in lockup but that didnt really bother me and was gonna accept it as a fait accompli. He then tells me that he's gonna give me a break and hes now "unarresting me" and gonna cut me loose but tells me to go get tested for STD's.

As I was driving away, I realized that I had kept my cool... was polite and didnt get caught in the cops game of self incrimination / intimidation. It sure helped that I had reviewed those short clips to surviving a traffic stop a couple of days before. Im pretty sure I handled the situation in the best way possible considering but wouldnt mind any input. Oh, and btw... no speeding ticket was even discussed when he cut me loose.

What do you think ghostie? You sound like the legal authority here... did the cop have two legs to stand on, or was he just fishing trying to get me to self incriminate? Opionions? Critiques?

Overall an interesting evening, like I've said before, play safe fellas.



p.s. found another link with some more good hints..... http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?list=type&type=23

 

[Geo]

It sounds like he told you you were under arrest for whatever as a way to scare you into the admission of what you were doing. Your request to speak to counsel appeared to be the right response. By the way, "obstruction of justice" is pure b.s. in this situation: taking the word of an accomplice in a crime as the truth and using it as evidence to charge the other accused is NOT obstruction of justice.

Thanks for the story... interesting to note such tactics are used.

 

[D.MackinAllDay[:]

Lickalot,

I think that you did very well. I'm from the US, but I think that there is sufficient commanality in the law that the following may be instructive. A common method (at least south of the border) is for the police to claim to have a statement from your accomplice which implicates you. They hope that you will feel anger towards your accomplice and want to "set the record straight" or, alternatively, feel hopeless and cave in. They are permitted to lie to you regarding the existance of the accomplice statement (at least in the US). Also, an Obstruction charge is also common (in the US) because it is sometimes an independent basis for the arrest (if they really want to keep working on you). That is an additional reason why we should not try to bullshit the police. If they catch you in any inconsistency, then they have more to work with. When I was in a tight spot, I was totally polite and not argumentative. "Officer, I'm not being difficult and I do want to give you full cooperation. I'll answer any questions, excepting the events surrounding this stop. I really do want to run all of these questions past my lawyer and have him respond for me." All that I provided was my name, business address, and drivers license and variations of the above response. They kept me for two hours in a holding cell and kept grilling me. They waived a paper in the air which they claimed was a statement that would nail me and that it would go easier on me if I talked. They were hoping to get a statement to send to the prosecutor's office. I held out and provided no commentary at all. No charges were brought. After the statute of limitations ran on any criminal charges, I filed an departmental grievance against the arresting officers.

 

[joshrules001]

Hey lickalotapus,

Thanks for sharing your story. I think you played it pretty cool... but I would actually recommend playing it cooler still... ice cold if possible. Like this guy --> I know it can be tough to stand there in the "face of the Beast" and hold it together. You did a nice job though, particularly if you aren't 100% sure on your rights (and let's face it, who that doesn't work in this field really is 100% sure?) and/or you haven't been stopped often in the past.

A couple of things I would note. Don't bother setting up a story with your SW. This chick would probably be trying to pull your gold fillings out of your mouth if you were passed out. She'll sell you down the river for nothing. You aren't going to be charged with anything on the basis of her story. Although I suppose it is possible, I have never seen one go to court on this basis. The SW is just too unreliable as a witness, and for something nickle-and-dime like "communicating", who cares? I assure you the VPD don't.

If the SW was alleging to police that you assaulted her or sexually assaulted her then, yes they would go with her as the main witness on a charge, but most likely she wouldn't show up for court and the Crown would end up having to stay your charge (after making you go through the charade of setting a trial date, etc....) [And note, I am not saying anyone should threaten or assault SW's, I'm just giving you an example of where police will rely on an SW's evidence]. If she wants to bolt, let her go. Who cares. The police aren't after her, they're after you to see what they can get out of you. The SW can do a lot more damage to you if you have put yourself out on a limb by pre-arranging a fake story. Just let her say whatever the hell she wants. The cops are looking for incriminating evidence out of YOUR mouth.

As I've noted before... the police can always stop you when you are driving a vehicle, but note:

"Officers can stop persons only for legal reasons -- in this case reasons related to driving a car such as checking the driver's licence and insurance, the sobriety of the driver and the mechanical fitness of the vehicle. Once stopped the only questions that may justifiably be asked are those related to driving offences. Any further, more intrusive procedures could only be undertaken based upon reasonable and probable grounds. Where a stop is found to be unlawful, the evidence from the stop could well be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter."

This comes from a Supreme Court of Canada decision from 1990 called R. v. Ladouceur, and has been upheld continuously since then.

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1990/vol1/html/1990scr1_1257.html

That decision was very controversial at the time. Read the dissent and you will see why. The dissenters (4 of 9 members of the Court) said, in effect, that if we allow the police to stop vehicles on no grounds on the basis that this is balanced off by requiring them to limit their questions to motor vehcile related matters, they will just use motor vechile stops as a pre-text to criminal investigations where they otherwise would not have the grounds to arrest or detain someone in relation to crime!

I think this prophecy has really born itself out since Ladoucer was written 15 years ago. The police do this ALL THE TIME! They pull people over on the pretence of motor vehcile grounds when they are really just trying to gather evidence to arrest or detain on criminal grounds. This is what happened to you.

[too long, must break]

 

[Coke D]

[second part]

This is the crunch-time though. The cop has stopped you. He (or she) comes up to the window and starts asking about motor vehicle related matters (of which impaired driving is part). The police need "reasonable grounds to suspect that you have alcohol in your body" before they can ask you to provide a breath sample to an "ASD" (what used to be called an "A.L.E.R.T.", one of those things that goes "pass", "warn", "fail" - if you get "fail" then they have their "reasonable and probable grounds" right there to believe that you have committed the offence of impaired driving - and then you will be required to go to the police station and provide a breath sample for a breathalyser (or refuse to do so and face the same penalty).

They can also get the the grounds to suspect that you have "alcohol in your body" in a number of different ways - although the police don't like to do this because it is harder to hold up in court. That's what the cops were getting at with the questions about whether you have been drinking (and guys.. please, please, for your own sake... NEVER answer this question. Just say nothing or tell the cop that you are "exercising your right to silence." As soon as you say "I had a couple beers"..BOOM the ASD demand is there (because what could be better grounds to suspect that you have alcohol in your body then YOU telling the cop yourself) and if you do have alcohol in your system, chances are you are going to get a "fail" and then the shit really starts to get deeper.

This leads to the main point I want to make. DON'T LIE TO THE COPS. This is one of the main things they rely on in arresting people in these B.S. situations, and this is what almost sunk you in your experience. If you say something, they might be able to figure out that you are lying... or at least FORM REASONABLE AND PROBABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE LYING (which is all they have to do... they don't have to KNOW that you are lying). This is what they did by checking with your SW, and of course she sold you out. If you say nothing you aren't lying. But if you tell them a story they might think that you are lying and they might even have a reasonable basis to believe this (if as in your case there is another person that they can seperate you from and question seperately).

Lying to a police officer is "obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duty" (Code s. 129). They can arrest you for this offence. Say nothing and you won't fall into this trap.

It's interesting to note that the questions they were asking you were, as I said in my other posts, all of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety... i.e. a question that assumes a certain behaviour (in your case picking up prositutes). It is not illegal to have a prositute in your car. It is not illegal to talk to a prostitute. The only possible offence, as I see it, that you came anywhere near to was s. 213 "Communicating for the purposes of prositution", but this communication, it sounds like, took place some time before the police came into your evening (if ever )

The police are miles... and I do mean MILES, away from having the grounds to make a lawful arrest for s. 213. It also sounds like you were fully sober and probably not committing any kind of Motor Vehicle Act offence (the speeding thing sounds like B.S. ... were you in the Downtown Eastside? Where can you really speed around there?)

The police do have this other power to detain you short of arrest though. It is called "investigative detention", something which is rapidly becoming known as the "Mann power" (after the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Mann). This is the case I quoted from extensively in my earlier post (It's actually a quote from the summary). Here is the link again if you want to read the summary:

R. v. Mann: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2004/vol3/html/2004scr3_0059.html

This is the thing where cops can so a "protective pat-down" on a detained person who is not under arrest. Our U.S. visitors will recognize this as the same thing as Terry v. Ohio from the U.S. Supreme Court of the 1960s - detention on "articulable cause". We use this terminology in Canada as well... but we also use the same terminology as in the impaired driving scenario.... "reasonable grounds to suspect" ("alcohol in the body" - for an ASD demand; "connection to a particular criminal activity" for a Mann-stop) vs. the more stringent arrest power "reasonable and probable grounds to believe" (that the person has committed the offence of impaired driving; committed any other Code offence).

If the police were going to stop you on Mann ("investigative detention") grounds, the question the court would ask would be, (and which the police officer should be asking himself before detaining you) is are there "reasonable grounds to suspect in all the circumstances that the individual (you) is connected to a particular crime (communicating for the purposes of prositution) based on the circumstances (having someone in your car that the police believe is working as a prostitute)?"

I think that the answer to this question is "no". Most of the Mann-type cases so far have been related to drugs and concealed weapons like handguns. I have yet to see one that involves prostitution. That is another thing to keep in mind: Prostitution offences are BULLSHIT and rarely go to court (appologies to anyone who has been unlucky enough to go to court for one). The cops don't give a fuck whether you just got a blow job from a crackhead. They are just fucking with you to see if they can take you down. SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and they will have squat to work with.

Trust me on this it works. Sure you might piss them off a bit, but who cares? They're not going to risk their careers and a civil suit by arresting you and taking you to the station with absolute no grounds! And even if a cop was dumb enough to do this (and there are a few, when they get mad enough), Crown will never approve charges without sufficient evidence to prove the charge.

Anyway, hope that wasn't too in-depth for people. You held your ground and you got out of there o.k. That's the main thing. I think you could hold your ground even more though. Next time you'll know your rights even more.

Stand up to these buggers boys! Trust me, they treat you like trophies to be taken down and humilliated. If you are arrested they could even strip search you!! (even though there are supposed to be limits on this, the VPD is notorious for humilliating people like this). Do you really want to give them the ammo to bring you down?

 

[DanielCude]

Wow thanks ghostie !!!

Those case law examples you posted certainly make some interested reading... I've been looking at them for the last 1/2 hour. Thanks for the tips... I'll keep that in mind if the situation ever presents itself again (hopefully not though hehe )

I've been playing the whole thing over in my mind and am beginning to realize what games the police play, and what power these guys wield. They essentially can pull anyone over on a whim and say its for a motor vehicle violation. Then, cast a line out and see whats on the hook. Totally unbelievable.

The only thing that sort of concerns me is the being totally uncoperative part.... I mean, clamming up during a traffic stop is only going to piss off the cop to no end. The last thing I want to do would be for the situation to escalate to the next level. How would the cop react to me invoking my charter rights? Would he have me exit the vehicle and arbitrarily start searching my car? Do I have the right to refuse consent for the search?

I see your point in saying nothing though... why give the cops any ammunition to use against you right? Also, thanks for taking the time to enlighten me (and others I'm sure) on what to do (and not do) to survive a police encounter. It's really appreciated!!

Btw.. I was completely sober and yes, I was downtown... hehe

 

[Pompal 09.]

Hey bro no problem, glad to help.

On your questions, I think you have to make a distinction - particularly in your own mind when you get into one of these situations - between being uncooperative and not making statements. Don't give the cops attitude. That won't help you. But don't give them statements either. Be polite, say "hello", all that good stuff. Just don't say anything about what you are doing, have been doing, etc.

Some guys will take a real hard line and not even roll down their windows or anything (especially in impaired situations). I don't recommend this. Stay in your car unless they order you out. If your car reeks of alcohol or pot smoke then you may not want to follow my advice on the window roll-down, but you're probably pretty much hooped in those situations anyway, at least in terms of not getting charged.

In normal circumstances though you want to roll down your window and not seem secretive or uncooperative, if only because you don't want the cops to start getting into "officer safety mode". Just keep it mellow. Be as co-operative as possible without saying anything that has anything to do with where you've been, what you are doing, what you were doing, etc.

Will the cops punish you for invoking your Charter rights? Not if they have the slighest idea about what they are doing. Those rights are your birthright bro! No 2-bit cop can ever take those rights away from you. They may not take your rights seriously in all cases but the courts will, and that's what counts.

Same thing goes for the consequences of invoking your Charter rights. Legally there are not, and can NEVER be, any negative consequences for invoking the rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution. Saying that you won't be providing any statements or making any comments of any kind is not grounds to arrest you. It is the opposite that is true, as I have pointed out before.

Maybe the cop will be a fuck-wad and order you out of the car, probably not though. And even if they do, don't panic. They aren't any closer to arresting you. I personally don't believe that there is ANY basis in law for ordering you out of the car in your situation. What the cops would (and would have to if they plan on not getting their case tossed) argue if this went to court (like, say if your scenario led to the cops finding drugs in your car and you were charged with PPT or something like that) is that they ordered you out of the car for officer safety reasons. But if there is no basis for this, as would be the case in your scenario, the judge is going to look dimly on this kind of police behaviour.

Requiring you to exit the car and having lawful grounds to search the car are not the same thing. Unfortunately this is an area of the law that is somewhat unclear right now. If you are arrested in a vehicle (that is, arrested on reasonable and probable grounds to believe that you have committed a criminal offence... not just detained on "reasonable suspicion") then the police will be able to lawfully search some or all of the interior of the vehicle. This area of the law is complicated and I won't spell it all out here. PM me if you are concerned about this.

But if you aren't under arrest then they can't search the car, they can only pat you down for safety if you are detained on "reasonable suspicion of involvement in a particular criminal activity." If you are detained on a traffic stop (like you were, supposedly) then they aren't even supposed to ask you QUESTIONS that aren't related to driving a car!! So they sure as hell have no power to search you, or search your car or order you out of the car in this situation.

On the consent to search. NEVER EVER CONSENT TO ANY SEARCH OF YOUR PERSON OR YOUR VEHICLE OR YOUR HOME OR OFFICE... EVER! If the officer is asking for your consent that means that he or she doesn't have the lawful authority to do the search without your consent (or first obtaining a warrant). If they don't need your consent they won't ask for it. Despite that, it always boggles my mind how many people agree to "consent searches". You don't have to consent and you shouldn't. It's just like "never invite a police officer into your home". If they want to come into your house and look around they can bloody-well establish their reasonable and probable grounds before a justice of the peace and get a warrant. If they just want to talk to you then fine, it shouldn't be in the home. Same goes for searching your car. If want to search my car you can go get a fucking warrant. Don't ask me to give up my rights! (Of course, don't say that... but you can think that in your head )

The cops might try and make it seem like getting a warrant is a mere formality and that it is just inevitable... blah, blah... so you should consent now... blah, blah. Don't fall for this. They are bluffing you. On most of these things they'd be embarrased to take their grounds to a JP. They're just hoping that you cave and give them a free-bee search which they don't have the grounds to do without your consent. Any cop that thinks getting a warrant is just a formality is either very inexperienced or has been watching too much TV or both.

Good luck!

 

[The Origin of Species]

thanks again ghostie... you've really clarified some things in my mind. very appreciated.

 

[zookiee22]

Doesn't anybody watch Law and Order.
Ghostie's comments are bang on... NEVER give your consent. Never invite the cops into your house, car, etc. - If they want to talk to you, go outside, lock the door behind you, and have their conversation.
Reiterating one point again - BE POLITE. You can not win an argument, and will only make the situation worse - remember - 'yes, sir, no sir, three bags full sir'

 

[Madeline]

Excellent post Ghostie. Thanks for keeping us informed. I'm sure that RCMPPIG fella is a regular there.

euradog

 

[ninety9point8]

This is the most interesting thread I've read on eforum.xxx todate, and I don't even visit SW's. Great job Ghostie!!

And I won't even ask why you now have a gun as a signature..and last I seen it appeared to be getting bigger with each post!!

 

[amber]

A few years back, I was pulled over while driving. There's a woman in the passenger seat. There are hard drugs in the car. Officer suspects drugs, given the incongruous nature of my german-built vehicle in that particular neighbourhood. He bullies us. He says he knows she's a hooker with a record, he says he knows there are drugs in the car, and he says he'll let one of us walk -- whoever tells him where the drugs are. The "lady" blurts out where the drugs are. I remain silent. (Pissed off, but silent.)

The officer removes me from the car, handcuffs me to a nearby street sign and searches the car. He discovers the substance. He proceeds to process the evidence and book us. During this time there is a minor shooting incident about two blocks away.

We go to court. In addition to the woman's testimony, the prosecution had the substance itself, with my fingerprints on it. My lawyer argued that detaining me in the open during the shootout put me in danger, and put her under duress. Judge ruled that her testimony was coerced by the threat of danger. Without her testimony, the search was also deemed illegal. (Phew.)

I think this proves Ghostie's point about how pivotal testimony can be. I look forward to Ghostie's case review.

-- Crackhead

 

[Pompal 09.]

Wow, that's a mightly long word for a CRACKHEAD... (just pokin') I liked the usage in the post.

 

[Elissa]

I just want to echo the posts above. The cops do have the right to stop you, to direct you around a bit (get in/get out of car), and ask for i.d.

They do not have the right to search you or the car without suspicion. This is important. The first question you should ask them if they want to know what you're doing, or want to search you is: "Am I under suspicion for something?" It is tempting to prove your innocence by letting them search your car, but then that condom wrapper they find could get them to press on you harder.

I like to mess a bit with their heads, but overall you should be courteous. Their job is tough, and they see a lot of shit. The two things I do do are: I always get out of my car right away and start approaching them (slowly and with hands out); I'm 6'3" and 265lbs and it is funny how fast they start getting nervous (I realize I'm tempting fate, but I do that with my pooning anyway). The second thing I do is when they come up to my car, I let them know I'm going to record the conversation.

 

[Ray]

This has got to be the most important thread I have read to date. That along with the links to those (for lack of a better term) 'beat the law' sites have been the most useful pieces of info I have found in any forum. I'm certain that you have prevented me from potentially stepping on my dick in the near future-

God, I hate it when I step on my dick

thx
NoZ

 

[HighHelper]

not entirely true my friend. drinking n driving laws have changed (to my surprise when i pulled out my LSLAM - law students legal advice manual). if they suspect you're dd....you dont have the right to prior counsel. if they ask for a breath sample...you dont have the right to prior counsel. if they ask for a breath sample....you dont have up to two hours of the commission of the offence to prove the sample. failure to provide the sample results in a charge.

 

[Becca]

regarding this...anything in your car is in plain sight. no searching required. if they see you have needles, condoms, lighters, tubes, white powder substance AFTER they say to u that you are not under suspicion...they can always change your current status.

 

[sdheed707]

plz remember that NOT ALL of your CRF are protected.
according to sect1 of CRF: the law may infringe if it can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. which is why you can not simply drive away from a drinking driving road block.

 

[Computer Wiz!]

Thought this thread was worth the *bump* and worth resurrecting, since there've been a few members pinched lately...