Quote (Caedus @ Oct 13 2014 07:27pm)
That's not how the law works. This isn't Law and Order. Only evidence obtained as a result of illegal search and seizure is inadmissible, and illegal search and seizure has limitations and exceptions under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
They absolutely had cause to enter. The law isn't your perverse Libertarian views on how the law should work. The law allows police officers to enter homes without a warrant, and enforcing a noise violation after the third compliant complies. It doesn't matter they were not acting completely in the right. These plaintiffs maybe should have stopped making as much noise and actually answered their doors and they wouldn't be in this situation.
That's exactly how the law works, and your description agrees with mine. Are you off kilter here?
You can say that until you're blue in the face, and you're still dead wrong. Cause to enter needs a warrant. Allow me to quote:
Quote
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Does reason tell you that if the cops don't break in, they're going to get away? Does reason tell you that a dark and quiet house is itching for the homeowners' asses to be beaten? Simply put, there was no pressing concern for safety or justice that meant the step of obtaining a warrant was an unnecessary burden on the cops.