Lawyer Shoutout & More rights for my fellow hunters - Page 4

Big Sky · #91 09-20-2018, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So where does this leave the check stops, where the police and F&W pull over hundreds of vehicles with no probable cause? Come New Years eve, are we going to see no more check stops?

Alberta's check stop program is legal. Lots of info on the web.
http://libertylaw.ca/alberta-checkst...aired-driving/

F&W check stop program is OK according to the Solicitor General

Quote:

Operate check stops to ensure compliance with hunting and angling legislation and regulations, including transportation and appropriate documentation. This is often done in partnership with other enforcement agencies.

https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/progra...eOfficers.aspx

Random stops of vehicles without cause is not legal.

MK2750 · #92 09-20-2018, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hal53

Some peoples replies on this thread make me wonder why more people don't take the CO's to court when they are stopped and checked and everything is alright.. why wouldn't you go after the officer for illegally pulling you over?

Because of time and money. I thought hard about it on one occasion and if money wasn't for time and money I would have filed a formal complaint. 45 minutes freezing on the side of the road while somebody tries to figure out how a shotgun works.

leeelmer · #93 09-20-2018, 10:09 AM

ITs not that most of us care that we get randomly pulled over, the fact is that it is illegal, and the laws would have to change to make it legal.
I know that fish and wildlife get a raw deal and they are understaffed and under appreciated, but the law is the law, and they need to follow it.
It sucks, but it is the way it is.
IF the government changed the laws for just fish and wildlife, it would open a big ugly can of worms. And president could be set for other enforcement agencies, and no one wants that.
Move to Japan then you will understand what I mean. If you are asked to supply your papers and you left them at home, you are detained and deported. They don't care, they can do random searches. Any enforcement agency. Look at what was in Germany during WW2, random searches anytime. No one wants this, and yes that is exactly what our laws are soposto prevent.

DJS · #94 09-20-2018, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeelmer

ITs not that most of us care that we get randomly pulled over, the fact is that it is illegal, and the laws would have to change to make it legal.
I know that fish and wildlife get a raw deal and they are understaffed and under appreciated, but the law is the law, and they need to follow it.
It sucks, but it is the way it is.
IF the government changed the laws for just fish and wildlife, it would open a big ugly can of worms. And president could be set for other enforcement agencies, and no one wants that.
Move to Japan then you will understand what I mean. If you are asked to supply your papers and you left them at home, you are detained and deported. They don't care, they can do random searches. Any enforcement agency. Look at what was in Germany during WW2, random searches anytime. No one wants this, and yes that is exactly what our laws are soposto prevent.

I can appreciate what your pointing out. But as long as there are those officers out there who will pull me over randomly I won't be complaining. Its really one of the few ways they will ever catch anyone breaking the law.

Sportsman · #95 09-20-2018, 10:16 AM

Baaa Baaa! I can’t believe the amount of ‘sheep’ on this thread who think it’s ok for someone’s rights to be infringed upon like this! Boo boo, the Co’s are underpaid and overworked, well so is the rest of the world so suck it up and do your job properly. If an officer does not understand that the Canadian Charter of Rights protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure then he has no business in law enforcement of any kind.

Joe Black · #96 09-20-2018, 10:16 AM

"I can appreciate what your pointing out. But as long as there are those officers out there who will pull me over randomly I won't be complaining. Its really one of the few ways they will ever catch anyone breaking the law."

by breaking the law themselves

not all enforcement officers are saints. daily news shows us this. the laws are such to keep the unsavoury and zealous enforcement offers out there accountable.

DJS · #97 09-20-2018, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sportsman

Baaa Baaa! I can’t believe the amount of ‘sheep’ on this thread who think it’s ok for someone’s rights to be infringed upon like this! Boo boo, the Co’s are underpaid and overworked, well so is the rest of the world so suck it up and do your job properly. If an officer does not understand that the Canadian Charter of Rights protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure then he has no business in law enforcement of any kind.

And I can't believe the number of guys here (not gonna stoop to your level and call names) who think that breaking the law and getting off on a technicality is ok either. By the sounds of it you have a mind for law enforcement or how it could be done better...how would you recommend the CO in this case could have done "his job" better or differently to end up with the same charges?

DJS · #98 09-20-2018, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Black

"I can appreciate what your pointing out. But as long as there are those officers out there who will pull me over randomly I won't be complaining. Its really one of the few ways they will ever catch anyone breaking the law."

by breaking the law themselves

not all enforcement officers are saints. daily news shows us this. the laws are such to keep the unsavoury and zealous enforcement offers out there accountable.

So the CO in this instance falls into the category of unsavoury and zealous?

sjemac · #99 09-20-2018, 10:23 AM

The OP broke the law. The CO broke the law. The law breaking ended up getting nullified in court. The OP is still out the lawyer fees so it is not like he got away completely.

DJS · #**100** 09-20-2018, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjemac

The OP broke the law. The CO broke the law. The law breaking ended up getting nullified in court. The OP is still out the lawyer fees so it is not like he got away completely.

I could maybe understand the OP for being upset had he not broke any laws. But the fact he did get caught in contravention to two offences angers me that he'd even think about challenging them in court based on the fact the CO stopped him "illegally". Then comes on to the forum here and publically brags about it.

Joe Black · #**101** 09-20-2018, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJS

So the CO in this instance falls into the category of unsavoury and zealous?

zeal
noun
great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective.

in this case, so much so, he broke the law. so yes. zealous

hal53 · #**102** 09-20-2018, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Black

zeal
noun
great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective.

in this case, so much so, he broke the law. so yes. zealous

How would you suggest the CO's perform their duties?

Joe Black · #**103** 09-20-2018, 10:59 AM

i dont know.

maybe start by not breaking the law????????

lannie · #**104** 09-20-2018, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Black

i dont know.

maybe start by not breaking the law????????

Perfect.

walking buffalo · #**105** 09-20-2018, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hal53

Some peoples replies on this thread make me wonder why more people don't take the CO's to court when they are stopped and checked and everything is alright.. why wouldn't you go after the officer for illegally pulling you over?

It's pretty tough to get standing for a constitutional challenge when you haven't been charged with anything.

Maybe a Human Rights tribunal. Claim social profiling, blah blah blah..... that could work.

-------

Let's acknowledge that the majority of our hunting regulations are vetted through court decisions, mostly from "poachers" and people that made honest mistakes.

What is important for Us hunters is the possibility that there has been a favourable ruling to limit expanding leeway given to governments to treat hunters and fishers with lesser rights than everyone else.

What we need now is to see the case documents. That would be helpful to determine if the OP's claim is correct.

DJS · #**106** 09-20-2018, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Black

i dont know.

maybe start by not breaking the law????????

Great answer if your actually not wanting to answer the question. The first part of your answer tells us more to be honest.

I'll ask again...how would you go about doing his job in the situation the OP was in?

DJS · #**107** 09-20-2018, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Black

zeal
noun
great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective.

in this case, so much so, he broke the law. so yes. zealous

We'll have to agree to disagree.

leeelmer · #**108** 09-20-2018, 11:54 AM

If the officer in this case had thought that the OP had broken the law. As I stated above, he could have just followed the OP to his house, and watched him start to unload, then walked up and questioned him.
The charges then would have stuck, and the OP would have been screwed.
That is the way our laws are written.
Now had someone called into report a poacher, and reported that someone poached a deer, and the OP truck matched the description, or he was in the area exact same, then the CO would have had his reasonable grounds to pull him over.
RCMP are tasked the same.
I believe that as sportsmen, we have been accustomed to have random searches done, and believe if you are doing the right thing it is no big deal.
But that costs us our freedom.
Again, look at what would happen if the RCMP did random searches of our homes. Same thing applies, well if you have nothing to hide then whats wrong with it??
Now do I agree that the OP got off? Yes because his constitutional rights were infringed on.
Now had the CO done things properly the OP would have been charged and convicted, and I think all of us here would be pleased that the Fish and Wildlife Enforcement caught a guilty party and the charges stuck.

Joe Black · #**109** 09-20-2018, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJS

Great answer if your actually not wanting to answer the question. The first part of your answer tells us more to be honest.

I'll ask again...how would you go about doing his job in the situation the OP was in?

hey, if your ok with law enforcement breaking the law to do their job, more power to you.

im not.

how about this. get out of your shinny warm chevy, put on some miles, and enforce the rules of hunting IN THE FIELD.

hmmm, guess i do know,,,,,,

Slvdout · #**110** 09-20-2018, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJS

Great answer if your actually not wanting to answer the question. The first part of your answer tells us more to be honest.

I'll ask again...how would you go about doing his job in the situation the OP was in?

The CO should have kept driving. He had no reason to pull the OP over.

DJS · #**111** 09-20-2018, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Black

hey, if your ok with law enforcement breaking the law to do their job, more power to you.

im not.

how about this. get out of your shinny warm chevy, put on some miles, and enforce the rules of hunting IN THE FIELD.

hmmm, guess i do know,,,,,,

Actually, I have ran into COs much more out in the field on foot or on an ATV for that matter where they are anything but warm and comfortable. Ive been stopped on the road all of two times in 20 years of hunting but numerous times out away from any road. Not sure there's anyone who could argue with that. But I'm guessing your the type that would find something wrong being stopped by a CO out in the field as well. Regardless, your right, that is one way the CO could have found the untagged deer.

DJS · #**112** 09-20-2018, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slvdout

The CO should have kept driving. He had no reason to pull the OP over.

Until it turned out the guy he was pulling over had broken two laws. But lets jump on law enforcement. Seems to be what we do in the 21st century.

Sportsman · #**113** 09-20-2018, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJS

And I can't believe the number of guys here (not gonna stoop to your level and call names) who think that breaking the law and getting off on a technicality is ok either. By the sounds of it you have a mind for law enforcement or how it could be done better...how would you recommend the CO in this case could have done "his job" better or differently to end up with the same charges?

How about they just follow the Law as it’s written. The fact is these random stops should not be happening.

DJS · #**114** 09-20-2018, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sportsman

How about they just follow the Law as it’s written. The fact is these random stops should not be happening.

The fact is that random stops are a loop hole for criminals to get around. How many of you would be in favour of a change to this law? Make it legal for COs and RCMP to make random stops?

bobtodrick · #**115** 09-20-2018, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hal53

Some peoples replies on this thread make me wonder why more people don't take the CO's to court when they are stopped and checked and everything is alright.. why wouldn't you go after the officer for illegally pulling you over?

Because when you are driving the police can stop you for no reason:
http://svan.ca/police-rights/

chuck0039 · #**116** 09-20-2018, 12:29 PM

If the officer was in the wrong then good on you for challenging it. What I don't understand about this entire story is:

1) your truck was "X" km away from highway on back road or trail
2) You most likely are wearing camo clothes or an orange vest or something related to hunting
3) it's hunting season in the area you were stopped and checked

How does the officer not have the right to complete a compliance check or random stop? All indications would have been that your hunting?

I'm just a little confused as to how the officer was in the wrong with this story.

Talking moose · #**117** 09-20-2018, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJS

The fact is that random stops are a loop hole for criminals to get around. How many of you would be in favour of a change to this law? Make it legal for COs and RCMP to make random stops?

Oh b.s..... drive an 81 trans am across the city at 2:00am, then do the same thing in a 2014 Ford Focus. Difference is, it took the tranny an hour longer to do because he was pulled over 4 times. Take your commy random stops and stick it.

Joe Black · #**118** 09-20-2018, 12:54 PM

one thing we can all agree on.

the 81 tranny is a sweet ride

leeelmer · #**119** 09-20-2018, 01:09 PM

Now we might agree that Fish and Wildlife should be able to do random stops for compliance, but the constitutional fact is they cannot.
Until this is changed, the CO was breaking the law.
Most will claim that they had reasonable grounds to pull you over, but a lawyer app on cross examination, will find out the truth.
This is the fact.

DJS · #**120** 09-20-2018, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Oh b.s..... drive an 81 trans am across the city at 2:00am, then do the same thing in a 2014 Ford Focus. Difference is, it took the tranny an hour longer to do because he was pulled over 4 times. Take your commy random stops and stick it.

Commy?! lol, good one. Even I laughed at that. Not trying to be anything of the sort. But there are times where random checks have a purpose. The instance of the original post clearly proves that.