2
political pressure (and ultimately, interference). One doesn't have to 'see' it. It's like anchovies in a Caesar salad. You man not be able to see them, but your discernment tells you they are there.
Some trucks are being lived in and as such, those trucks will be deemed a dwelling house. They cannot be entered without a search warrant. Period. The provisions of Section 487 of the Criminal Code of Canada apply. (PART 1)(See 6)
Police cannot buttress any offence- or evidentiary-related weaknesses in police investigative procedures by 'piggybacking' upon the authority of the Children's Aid Society.
5
SAID PLAINLY, a child apprehension does not permit police to enter a dwelling house for purposes of criminal search and seizure. (R v Colarusso)(PART 2)(See 7)
2
COURTESY NOTE: Please be advised that this Thread is lengthy.
HAVING ALREADY ADDRESSED the requirement for search warrants AND pointed out (the spectre of) possible "improper complicity" between agencies -
CANADIANS will need to pay close attention to any police operation.
3
IF CANADIANS should end up seeing that @OttawaPolice@OPSChiefSloly have failed to obtain necessary search warrants, AND if instead, they see police 'piggybacking' on authority of @CASO_SAEO for anything other than being limited to assisting by 'standing by to keep the peace'
1️⃣ Some trucks #ConvoyForFreedom2022 are dwelling house;
2️⃣ Search warrant provisions CANNOT be circumvented by 'piggybacking' on #CAS apprehension authority.
Does a "potential for improper complicity" (R v Colarusso) between the police and in this case, The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa exist in relation to #FreedomConvoyCanada2022 ?
Allow me to explain.
2/6 IF ANY CONSIDERATION is underway between @OttawaPolice and @CASO_SAEO whereupon the police seek to improperly buttress their investigative procedures (and overcome any case weaknesses), THEN such would run afoul of R v Colarusso.
3/6 In R v Colarusso, Supreme Court of Canada #SCC ruled clearly:
"It is sufficient to say that this Court will not tolerate using the [Substitution of: '#CAS right of apprehension'] as a 'back door' means of defeating ..."
IF SO - AS A FMR RCMP (Ret'd) there can be little doubt as the question is essentially rhetorical (See 2) - THEN any "police crackdown" [media parlance] toronto.citynews.ca/2022/02/08/ott…
2/4 ⟨MUST⟩ address this in any search and seizure of these places ("units"), if it is to be conducted lawfully.
WHAT DOES THIS ULTIMATELY MEAN?
This is significant.
It means Information to Obtain (ITO) will be required and separate Section 487 Search Warrant for each and
3/4 every truck being used a dwelling house.
This means the police will have to identify and differentiate each and every truck and determine whether it is being used as a dwelling house.
THEN once identified, the police must satisfy a Justice. (See Below)
Trudeau misleads Zarei. He responds to Zarei's forthright question about Canadian criminal investigation giving as a reason why there is no such investigation as: "Because a crime happened in Iran".
"In the past week, I have received what I would call threatening and harassing emails from the lawyer acting for the Government of Canada. Very distressing emails." (18:11)
2/4 WHEN GOVERNMENT lawyers are so audacious as to (brazenly) threaten and harass a lawyer acting on behalf of the families of Flight PS752, during an existing proceeding before the courts -
WHEN strong-arming becomes visible ...
3/4 'obstruct,pervert or defeat the course of justice' CAN'T be far behind.
CANADIANS MUST ASK
☞ What is the likelihood that this government did not exert (political) pressure on @CommrRCMPGRC@rcmpgrcpolice to insure NO Canadian criminal investigation?