A Brief Note On The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

Maryland police officers pulled a vehicle over for speeding at approximately 3am on 7 August 1999. The police officers found three men in the vehicle. The driver was Donte Partlow, the front seat passenger and defendant Joseph Pringle, and the backseat passenger Otis Smith. One of the police officers asked the owner and driver of the vehicle for his license and registration. When Partlow opened the glove box, the police officer observed a large amount of money in the glove box. The police officer checked for outstanding warrants and issued Partlow a warning. Then the officer asked for permission to search his vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle the police officer found the money he had seen earlier as well as five baggies of cocaine in-between the armrest and back seat. All three occupants in the vehicle were questioned and denied any knowledge or ownership of the cocaine. Subsequently all three men were arrested and brought back to the police station for questioning. Pringle waived his rights after being given a Miranda warning and confessed that the cocaine was his and he intended to sell it. He claimed that the other occupants in the vehicle had no knowledge of the drugs. At trial, Pringle moved to suppress his confession, claiming that it was the result of an illegal arrest. The court denied his motion, and

On March 17, 2016, at 1:41 P.M., officer T. Cramblett CPD#1191 was dispatched to he area of Sharon Woods Blvd. and Brookhurst Ave on a narcotics complaint. Radio was advised by a known caller that a white Chevrolet Malibu, occupied by two white females, was parked on the street and were involved in the sales of narcotics. Officer Cramblett was responding to the area when he observed a white Chevrolet Malibu traveling south bound on Beechcroft Rd. Officer G.Meyer CPD# 2333 had also been dispatched on the run, and was traveling north bound on Beechcroft Rd., when he observed the vehicle ,traveling south bound, and aired with radio that it was occupied by two white females. Officers Cramblett observed the vehicle turn east bound onto E. Dublin Granville Rd then initiated a traffic stop just west of Maple Canyon Ave. Officers Cramblett and Myer approached the vehicle and made contact with both occupants advising them of the nature of the stop and asking for

Case Procedural History: Roy Caballes tried to suppress the drugs seized in the stop by claiming that the state troopers did not have probable cause to search his vehicle. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress the seized marijuana. The trial judge held that the use of the drug dog did not prolong the duration

Bernard truck was in the river, witnesses stated he was the driver, and he admitted to drinking. Bernard denied driving the truck. The refusal of a breath test along with the facts of this case serves as justification for an arrest.

The Federal District court denied this motion to suppress the block of methamphetamine and prosecuted Bond finding him guilty of conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute. Moreover, Bond challenged the judgment made on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on grounds that the court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence since it was a violation of his right under the Fourth Amendment and because as per the petitioner, Bond, the officer had manipulated the bag in a way that other passengers would not have. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected his argument and affirmed the lower court’s

Facts: August 7, 1999, a car occupied by three men, Donte Partlow (driver and owner of vehicle) accused Pringle (front seat passenger), and Otis Smith riding in the back seat, were ultimately pulled over by a police officer for driving over the speed limit. Upon the officer approaching the vehicle, he asked to see Partlow’s license and registration, and as the defendant opened his glovebox, a fairly large sum of money was exposed in the amount of $763. The officer then returned to his patrol car to check Parlow’s license to ensure he had no warrants of anything outstanding, Partlow came out clear, so he issued Partlow a verbal warning. Upon arrival of the second officer he asked if they minded he search the vehicle, Partlow had no issues and agreed to the search. The police not only found the $763 in the glove compartment but also five glassine Baggies of cocaine stashed behind the backseat armrest. The officers questioned the men as to who the cash and drugs belong too, none of them took ownership, the officers advised them that if no one claim the drugs and cash as theirs, they all would be arrested and charged. So, all three were arrested and taken to jail. Later on, in the morning Pringle decided he would waived his Miranda rights, then made a full verbal and written admission that the cash and drugs were his

The operator of the Pontiac continued pass your Affiant's marked police vehicle in a fast, careless manner and continued around Stamets patrol vehicle at an unreasonable speed. The operator stopped the vehicle beside Stamets who was actively involved in a traffic stop. The operator had her passenger side window positioned adjacent to the driver's door of the

Yes. The court considered the special circumstances the police encountered and questioned Mr. Grant, the entire interaction constitutes detention.

And yes like all citizens the fourth amendment does apply to all, but if the officer had to impound the vehicle, the marijuana would have been found and an added charges would have implied to stoddard

I believe it would be granted due to law enforcement’s suspicions not being reasonable or articulable. In the case of State v. Braxton, 90 N.C. App. 204 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988), the court found, "gestures which are not clearly furtive are insufficient to establish probable cause for a warrantless search unless the officer has other specific knowledge relating to evidence of crime." In State v. Braxton the defendant was pulled over by law enforcement for speeding and was observed putting something under the seat. When the defendant exited the vehicle the law enforcement officer searched the defendant and refused to answer any questions which pertained to the object which was put under the seat. Law enforcement searched the vehicle and found illegal drugs which led to the arrest of the defendant. Law enforcement continued searching the vehicle and found more evidence of illegal contraband. It was found that the defendant’s suspicions movements and actions were not enough probable cause to find the defendant dangerous. However, if law enforcement uses the observation of the young woman handing the passenger an object and then walking away from the vehicle as probable cause it could be argued that law enforcement’s suspicions were reasonable and

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the

The Canadian Charter of Rights has been entrenched in the Constitution Act of 1982 since 1982 and affected the lives of countless Canadians ever since it was passed, with most if not all of the effects being positive. This can be proven by the fact that the act that the act has only faced two amendments in the 35 years it has been in effect. Furthermore, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has five components; Fundamental Freedoms, Democratic Rights, Mobility Rights, Legal Rights, and Equality Rights. All of these were designed to make sure that Canadians face no discrimination, and are not denied any basic rights. This can be seen by seeing how much the quality of life for Canadians has increased over the time the Charter has been embedded in the Constitution, by how much the Charter actually does protect the rights of Canadians.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important milestone in Canadian history. An effort through rigorous debate and compromise gave birth to this document that defines our collective values and principles by guaranteeing and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. Prior to the Charter, there was no gurantee in Canada that rights and freedoms would not be taken away by legislation. The Charter also allows courts to render the constitutional duty so that any decisions made are consistent with those rights and freedoms. The Charter was established firmly in “The Constitution Act, 1982”, with the declaration of this act Canada escaped from the severe practice of concept of parliamentary supremacy. The Charter has an enormous effect on court’s decision power to award justice to important and debatable issues about policies that affect public. In awarding the verdict courts are not even reluctant to rewrite laws that violate the testament of the Charter. The judges have a duty to regulate the rulings of both provincial and federal governments which, disagree with the root value of Charter.

Freedom of expression, set under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is one of Canada’s most valued rights in the bill of rights of the Constitution. It has paved the way for the society in which thirty-five million people reside today. With this level of influence and admiration, it is truly a fundamental right. However, many ground-breaking cases have illustrated the need to limit freedom of expression. A prime example is the landmark case that took place in 1990 surrounding high school teacher, James Keegstra. This Supreme Court case touched mainly upon two sections of the Charter, and one section of the Criminal Code of Canada. These two sections in the Charter included section 1 (reasonable limits), and

The driver informs that he only had the registration and not driver license. I proceed to informed all passengers to stay in the car. At this point Officer Johnson arrive with a K-9, I informed him that, I can smell marijuana in the car and I just going to proceed to take the people out of the car.