Another Judge rules street racing law is unconstitutional

[chromius]

Originally Posted by sirex

On the one hand, you want to give more power to the police. (et al. Case of missing ADULT GIRL)

On the other hand, you dont want to give power to police. (et al. Stunt racing laws which are specifically desgined to give police more authority)

Who is the one not thinking? Youre contradicting your self every step of the way. The funny thing is, its not only you, its society that its okay with SOME of their rights being taken away in one area, but then get all huffy puffy when you touch on something else.

There is no contradiction. The other case has nothing to do with giving the police more power. They have always had the power to ask for help, and have always had the power to ask for permission to search. This is not something new. But I don't think you understand, the ability to ASK for permission, is not a power. When a person can say no, and the officer has no recourse, then that's not power. I have the exact same ability, I can walk up to someone and ask them if I can take a look in their house, and they can either say yes, or they can say no. I can ask them if I can look in their backyard for my missing daughter, and again, they can say no, or they can say yes. It's not a 'power'.

No-one is suggesting that police should have limitless power, no 'one' person should have that kind of power, but they do need a certain amount of power to be able to do their jobs effectively. And on the other side of the coin, there should always be an avenue to be able to defend yourself against charges, appeal a charge, and get a third party to review, before punishments are handed down.

[Nick_V]

I was glad to hear about this girl winning her case. It's a step back in the right direction (toward upholding constitutional rights). There seem to be way too many infringements these days, and if people don't fight them, it'll get worse. This street racing stuff is nowhere near as scary as Bill C-6 and the totally unchecked power it will give to Health Canada if given royal assent. It's dangerously close, from what I understand.

[Fel]

Originally Posted by sirex

Why should you have the right to defend your self though? Youre caught in the act, red handed.

I'll accept that as a fair point. The thing that makes law funny is extenuating circumstances. Think back to the first constitutional challenge of this law. An elderly woman got terrified of a transport truck and passed it as fast as she could... too fast, unfortunately for her, but it's something to take into consideration.

Perhaps instead of seizing her vehicle, she should have her license eligibility reevaluated. But that's another topic.

Originally Posted by sirex

Why should you have the option of saying no to being searched?

If there is just cause for you being searched (by way of a warrant issued by a judge, or if you are caught in the act of a crime and pose a potential threat, for example), then you don't have the option of saying no.

If you are being asked to cooperate as part of an investigation, you do have the option of saying no. Yeah sure, they can make you feel guilty about it, but there's no law saying you must comply and it is entirely within your rights to decline.






Look, I'll make this simple.

If you want to continue discussing the validity of the situation regarding the missing girl, and the police request to search homes in the immediate area, go post in the other thread dedicated to that topic.

If you want to discuss how an absolute liability offense carrying a penalty of jail time may infringe on our constitutional rights, go ahead and post that here. But so far you haven't posted a single word on that specific issue... the one that these judges are bringing to our attention.

Potential jail terms for offenses that do not permit a defense breaches the Charter of Rights. That is the issue here.

[chromius]

^^^ Well said.