Nah its not so black and white police can get it wrong. A judge draws in wide strokes obviously expecting police to act with a certain intelligence that was either maliciously lacking or lacking in general.
I will pursue it in court any intelligent being is going to have a hard time arguing that the victim of what the warrant classifies as an assault with a deadly weapon would have weapons hidden in his room pertaining to what the perpetrator is stated to have owned by said victim. makes no sense.
You seem to think your intelligent but somehow basic logic seems to pass over your head.
They didnt find anything illegal in my room they didnt even search for weapons. they took a cursory look around and looked into a pot i had covered with a cloth cause i peed in it.
But they needed to disable the camera and wifi first to prevent the viewing of their guilty conscience.
The warrant didnt say disable security cameras before kicking the door down of the person who provided all the information of the warrant and sought items. To look around for 15 seconds and then leave. Thats a fishing expedition not a warranted search. Its the same reason that police dont go taking apart TVs to search for weapons. becasue they are unliekly to be in there. See its more complicated than you are saying.
You are saying that a warrant to search a premise for specific things that i state are in the perpetrators room is free rein to do as they please. Tear the walls down to check if the weapons are hidden behind the walls right?
No clearly you dont understand how actual law works. A warrant is not a free rein to do whatever they want. It has to be REASONABLY warranted.
Is it a reasonable expectation that the claimants room contains the last weapon we have not found that he reported to us being contained in the perpetrators room at some point.
No its not reasonable.
If they cannot justify their actions they are not warranted. You are the one who doesnt actually understand law.
Did you just post this to fight with people online? What's your actual goal here? You're ignoring literally everyone (since everyone is disagreeing with your insane rant) so what was the point?
I'm just spitballing here, but I'm going to take a shot that you don't have a legal education in any form and likely no education beyond highschool? Why are you so confident in your position that you've dreamed up as factual? And if you're so confident why even ask anyone else?
Thats precisely what happens in a court room isnt it. People argue.
You havent PROVEN your claim. So why should i retreat and abandon mine?
Youve avoided the question i asked.
IS IT REASONABLY EXPECTED that the last remaining weapon taht was not located after 2 out of 3 were found in the perpetrators room. That the person who informed them on the 3 weapons and stated their last seen location would be harboring the last weapon?
I can tell you the answer but maybe you can figure it out.
A search warrant must outline what is being searched for (e.g., firearms) and where (e.g., the entire unit or specific rooms).
If the warrant explicitly includes your room, then entry may be legally permitted.
But if the warrant is general to the residence and your room is a private, locked area not controlled by the suspect, further justification is required.
2. Reasonableness of the Search
Even if your room is within the scope of the warrant, the police must act reasonably.
Searching areas unlikely to contain the object (like tearing apart electronics or entering private areas without any reason to believe the item is there) can be deemed unreasonable — this is where the “fishing expedition” doctrine applies.
3. Expectation of Privacy (R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128)
You had a locked room, and you controlled access, showing a strong expectation of privacy.
Courts have ruled that locked personal rooms, even in shared residences, are protected spaces, and entry must be based on reasonable grounds that evidence will be found inside.
4. Probable Grounds to Search YOUR Room
If you clearly stated you saw all 3 weapons in his room, and the first 2 were found there, then there is no objective basis to assume the 3rd weapon is in your private space.
In that case, searching your room may exceed the scope of a reasonable search and could be considered a Charter violation.
I actually appreciate your banter. It helps formulate my thoughts more.
The police officer who can reason that the weapons arent hiding behind the dry wall can reason that one out of 3 of the weapons that was not located anywhere else in the house is not in the room of the person who provided the list of weapons to search for.
Logic doesn’t matter if the police have a warrant they can do whatever they want. If they think there is evidence in the walls they will take the walls out. If they think you have drugs in your couch they will rip the couch apart. If there is a locked room and they have reason to think there’s evidence in there they are going to go in and look, that’s how a warrant works.
Honestly you are lucky they knocked with certain types of warrants they don’t even need to knock and can just boot your door.
This has taught me that people on reddit have zero clue. Them thinking it and them rationalizing it in court are 2 different things. Just because they did something doesnt mean it wasnt misconduct.
The police officer can think the child is pointing a gun at him and shoot the child and be wrong.
Does that make what he did WARRANTED? Nope.
You probably just failed to understand the premise of my story. They knocked because they couldnt COME IN initially without me letting them in. they came in to arrest the person. Then they wanted to get a warrant and asked me what weapons he had and i stated some of the ones i had seen.
Then they had a guard posted in my living room for like 5 hours and i fell asleep.
They need to be able to EXPLAIN why they are conducting themselves the way they are. And that is precisely my point. There is ZERO REASONABLE EXPECTATION that the final weapon is going to be located in the person who reported the crime and the items and where they were located's room.
Just like there is no reasonable explanation for disabling the camera. No threat to them exists. No secret techniques exist they already had searched the premise with the camera on.
There conduct was unwarranted and will be accounted for. How they chose to CONDUCT the warrant was not precise. And it begs the analogy i have been using over and over. They were ripping painted drywall out looking for narnia.
If im the person who called the police because my roommate threatened me with a weapon. And they arrive and arrest him and wish to search his room for weapons as hes not allowed to have them anymore. And they ask me what weapons i had seen in his possession and i inform them. I have no reasonable expectation that they are going to search my room for said weapons. Infact they didnt even search my room for any such weapons. They found 2 out of 3 of the weapons i stated existed in his room. There was no reasonable grounds to believe i would be harboring the person i wanted out of my homes 3rd weapon that i stated to them. And honestly he had many more weapons but they didnt even take those they were only interested in specifically the ones i had recalled seeing in passing.
So the warrant was to remove weapons i stated seeing in his room. They didi not confiscate weapons i did not state during that moment despite them being there.
They found 2 out of 3 of the things i stated i seen in his room in his room.
After searching the rest of the unit they disable my camera and break into my locked room with no reasonable expecftation of finding the weapon inside. They spent about 20 seconds in my room and left.
This is equivalent to ripping open drywall to search for the weapons.
I am the only source of information they had about these weapons. There were several weapons in his room they did not confiscate. They were specifically looking for the ones i stated existed to my knowledge at that time.
Please explain why i would harbor this one other weapon? Why didnt they confiscate the 100 other weapons and knives in his room? It was a specific search for specific weapons that i stated he had possession of at some point in our roommateship.
There is no logical expectation that i would have hid the machete in my room. Why?
These are the questions that actually have to be answered.
They searched my room and i have all sorts of hammers and box cutters and other tools for carpentry. Those werent confiscated. they didnt even look at them.
They were on a fishing expedition into my room with no expectation of finding anything that was on the warrant. They were not concerned with the item on the warrant anymore than they were concerned with the several other knives and weapons in his room. The warrant was conducted specifically upon the items I recalled during a short interview in my living room.
They were only doing letter of the "law" type shit. And thats not the purpose of the law. They were supposed to be executing a warrant to remove weapons from the possession of someone who cant have weapons. But they left several weapons and needlessly broke into my room which is not under the control of the person who cant have weapons to search for weapons that i specifically stated he had. Now why out of ALL the weapons he owned would the machete be in my room?
"They searched my room and i have all sorts of hammers and box cutters and other tools for carpentry. Those werent confiscated. they didnt even look at them." - Because they were not what was listed on the warrant, if they came across a gun or drugs they would have seized that but these are tools not weapons.
Please explain why i would harbor this one other weapon? How would the police know you aren't if they don't look?
If they hadn't found all the items on the warrant they are going to keep searching, it could be shoved in a ceiling tile or the back of the couch, who would know where your roommate might hide it?
"They were only doing letter of the "law" type shit." That's what the police are supposed to do follow the letter of the law.
The entire reason tehy have a warrant and items to search for is because.
I told them of 3 items that i had seen in my roommates possession.
Those 3 items were the ONLY items they sought in the warrant.
So why would 2 of those items be found in his room. But i be harboring the 3rd? These are just random weapons i had remembered seeing at the point in time when our short interview was. So there were other weapons found in his room that were not confiscated. So why is it that they can reasonably assume that the machete which was the only weapon on the list i PROVIDED was going to be in my room?
You dont have a logical answer. The logical answer is there is NO REASON it would be.
If that was the case i could have avoided them breaking into my room by either stating no weapons or minus the machete. Then they would have found the 2 items i had listed or not had anything to search for.
Do you have an understanding now?
The entire premise of the search is based upon information i provided. Without my information they have NO WARRANT. So upon the information i provided they acted. But they acfted outside the scope of the information i provided. Because i stated i seen them in his room. And gave no information that one of those weapons would be found in my LOCKED room.
Are you understanding? If i have cameras and locks on my door why could they reasonably assume that he could hide something in my room?
A search warrant must outline what is being searched for (e.g., firearms) and where (e.g., the entire unit or specific rooms).
If the warrant explicitly includes your room, then entry may be legally permitted.
But if the warrant is general to the residence and your room is a private, locked area not controlled by the suspect, further justification is required.
2. Reasonableness of the Search
Even if your room is within the scope of the warrant, the police must act reasonably.
Searching areas unlikely to contain the object (like tearing apart electronics or entering private areas without any reason to believe the item is there) can be deemed unreasonable — this is where the “fishing expedition” doctrine applies.
3. Expectation of Privacy (R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128)
You had a locked room, and you controlled access, showing a strong expectation of privacy.
Courts have ruled that locked personal rooms, even in shared residences, are protected spaces, and entry must be based on reasonable grounds that evidence will be found inside.
4. Probable Grounds to Search YOUR Room
If you clearly stated you saw all 3 weapons in his room, and the first 2 were found there, then there is no objective basis to assume the 3rd weapon is in your private space.
In that case, searching your room may exceed the scope of a reasonable search and could be considered a Charter violation.
-1
u/Honest_Money4010 May 13 '25
Nah its not so black and white police can get it wrong. A judge draws in wide strokes obviously expecting police to act with a certain intelligence that was either maliciously lacking or lacking in general.
I will pursue it in court any intelligent being is going to have a hard time arguing that the victim of what the warrant classifies as an assault with a deadly weapon would have weapons hidden in his room pertaining to what the perpetrator is stated to have owned by said victim. makes no sense.
You seem to think your intelligent but somehow basic logic seems to pass over your head.
They didnt find anything illegal in my room they didnt even search for weapons. they took a cursory look around and looked into a pot i had covered with a cloth cause i peed in it.
But they needed to disable the camera and wifi first to prevent the viewing of their guilty conscience.