Excellent, I think a fitting punishment would be to make the criminals stand and watch as each plant is fed into an incinerator.

make them smoke it all at once..haha

Another set of those evil, horrible drug dealers crushed by the long arm of the law. Everyone involved in ridding the city of this scum celebrated by going to the local pub and drinking a pint.

Well there is a new way to make an call to have a drug house busted....
shots fired.....
I like it......

Drug bust, eh? Refreshing change from racking up dough from motorists. The drug enforcement costs money and endangers officers lives. Handing out tickets/fines makes money AND there is no danger from innocent citizens.("who are not known to police"). Easy money.

"Charges are pending"

For calling in, in error, that shots were fired??

So, who called that in ..... RCMP??

I detect your tongue in cheek comment Owl,
but Who cares who called it in...
one less drug house....
and I would gather the charges would be for those in the drug house.A nice new twist on reporting a crime house I must say.

I wish the article would give the street address for these types of things!

I am gonna take the other side of the debate. Someone calls the police makes a complaint about you. The basis for complaint is found to be false but police discover a grow op?
So anyone can make a false complaint? This then gives police the right to "find" something else?
No wonder things don't stick in the courts. I hope the police were minding their p's and q's on this one.

Mom lives on Ewert Street. I wonder ...

jesus- another farmer persecuted for growing plants- one of b.c.s cash crops that probably was working on one of them government sponsored grants for a tax free enterprise - shucks it isn't only the counterfitter increasing the money supply in these tough times, come on fellas cut the government and the banks in on this they are always spending more than the take from us peasants.i hope the rcmp puts the evidence in their lock up and waters and nourishes them until court date, no garden raiding before then. tally ho !

Posted by: seamutt on May 30 2008 2:49 PM
Lost faith do some research on farmed salmon. Don't get your information from one source. There is a lot of biased misinformation out there. There is no corralation between wild salmon stocks and fish farms. Wild salmon stocks are down on the whole coast not just in the area of fish farms. You should see all the resorts in that area and the number of boats all summer. One never hears if that could be a problem, you know why, Morton gives talks at these resorts. Maybe a little biased there. Also these fish eat the same source of food as chickens, pigs and your fluffy cats and dogs.

A couple of rivers in the area of fish farms are doing quite well on fish returns. Surprising one never hears that from Morton and company.


It is very apparant from his response that Seamutt has monetary interests in the fish farms that are destroying our wild salmon. He has responded similarly in past posts.
All the information I have supplied is all good scientific evidence as to what these fish farms are doing to our wild fish.
Seamutt tries to discredit the fight against fish farming by saying I have only used one source of info. Just because I only used one source means nothing seamutt. There are many other sources out there that say the same things as the sources I have posted. All of them quote UBC professors as well as other notable experts to the FACTS that these farms are killing our wild salmon stocks.
You can try and convince others as to the contrary, however the truth is getting out.
Where is all the scientific evidence from the farming companies that says their farming methods don't hurt wild salmon.
There are none. All they have are their own claims.
How about the chemical called SLICE that these farmers pour into the ocean by the ton to kill sealice, explain how that is good stuff there Seamutt. None of your arguements hold water and may I suggest you invest your money elsewhere, cause we will put an end to these foriegn companies that are destroying our wild salmon.

For your info Mutt other fish are harvested from the ocean and turned into food to feed these artificial salmon.
It also takes more protein from these food fish to raise ONE farmed salmon than that one farmed salmon weighs at harvest.
The fish they catch and turn into food for these artificial salmon are fish that are a critical part of the oceans food chain. Just another part of nature that is being destroyed by these fish farming companies.
But you already know whats going on out there don't you.

Someone else here said something to the effect of it's all the nets that are destroying our wild salmon.
Yes that is also partly true, however at this time I am fighting the fight against open netpen fishfarming. The other threats against wild fish will be fought as they come up and I find time to do so.

That is bogus , lostfaith. Just because someone diagrees with you it doesnt mean they have a vested interest any more than certain peoples fixations on certain issues makes them insiders. Stick to arguing the facts, please. I would hate to see another personal attack fest like the one spawned by a certain other issue.
As for me i dont really follow the issue much, as i dont eat salmon much. However, i would point out that EVERY salmon you eat, wild or farmed, eats more food fish biomass than it yields. That is the result of eating high on the food chain.
Also, what use is it to identify fish farms as foreigners? If your cause is solid you dont need to stoop to such things. BEsides, how many fishing boats do you think are foreign owned? It is a fact that most of our industries are at least partly foreign owned. So please put the boogey man away.
This can be an excellent arena for discussion if people stick to debating, or even arguing rather than attacking each other.

A fish farm on Ewert???? So the pot was actually seaweed .... not the normal kind of weed????

Foreign owned to boot? Them Aussies are all over the place.

Smoked fish? Hmm, I see marketing potential here. Marijuana Mackerel anyone?

This one DEFINETLEY won't stick. And it shouldnt. How angry would you be if your house was searched with a false complaint? I guarantee you would be furious and on these boards telling off the cops for their procedures. But because it happened and they found Marijuana, thats ok? My buddy lives three houses down from this house. No shots heard there last night.

I agree local_radio_guy........two wrongs don't make a right! Not sure how they managed to get a warrant on this one either!

Ah well, as my pappy always said,"Two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 left turns do!"

;)

Thats all fine and dandy there Caranmacil, however come back and comment when you learn some facts about fish farms and who the foreigners are that are destroying our wild salmon.

They responded to a house investigating a report of shots fired. While in the house they noticed, in plain sight, the evidence of marijuana cultivation. Applied for a warrant, got it, 163 pot plants off the market, and charges pending against the crooks. Good night's work.

"This one DEFINETLEY won't stick. And it shouldnt. How angry would you be if your house was searched with a false complaint?"

Letsee... if my illegal grow op was discovered this way, I guess I would be pretty upset about it. I don't think the bleeding hearts would be nearly so apologetic if folks were cooking meth in that house.

The cops responded to a complaint... they have to react quickly to a 'shots fired' type of complaint. I'd want them to react quickly if someone reported shots fired in my neighborhood... even if it turned out to be false later.

Unfortunitly the sad part is that this charge will most likely not stick - but it should anyways.

I personally would not be that upset if police searched my house. At least I know that they are looking out for me. They had a report that someone thought they heard shots fired, maybe they did really think they heard shots fired, in that case I would rather police search then I actually have been shot and no one calls the police cause they thought they heard something. Maybe that could just save someones life. - Though I have nothing to hide in my house either.

If it was a false claim, the person claiming it stick to your guns, how can they prove that you did not hear gun fire shots? Maybe we can get this charge to stick for once.

I don't like my neighbours. I think I will harrass them and listen for gunfire tonight.

Great society we live in, isn't it?

:-(

BTW, it is going to get "better" than that if the intention of an international trades organization will be accepted. They want to make sure that computers, ipods, etc. do not have unlicensed programs and data on them - illegal copies of software, copyrighted music, movies, images, etc. etc.

When you take your laptop outside of your house (for now just then, unless someone says that they heard gunfire coming from your house) and use it at a coffee shop or airport lounge or any other public place, the police will not require a search warrant to take a look at what you have on your computer and fine you for anything illegal you may have on there.

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=ac94392c-7e05-4e30-af00-f237e9c23a9d

Of course, law abiding people have nothing to fear ..........

THere are a number of ways bad neighbours can pick on one another with the support of the state. You can phone child welfare, you can phone the SPCA. Neither of these orgs need warrants to bug you and the latter can get one over the phone now if they need to. You can phone the city or the regional district and complain about their yard, or noise, or their pets. The fact is that with all of these organizations you can be cited/charged for issues/infractions not related to the original complaint. One would argue that the interests of child welfare, animal welfare and upholding the law are important enough to warrant such an infringement of a persons rights. Erosion of individual rights is a gradual process and one which is usually done in the interest of 'public safety' or some other worthy cause. I think we all need to tread very carefully before we give away the rights of our fellow canadians.
In this case there is a lot of skepticism regarding the validity of the shots fired complaint. I assume the RCMP keep records of incoming calls. This would go a long way towards calming fears of a 'made up complaint'. Also, given the fact that there are literally dozens of known or suspected drug houses/grow ops in the city i suspect that if the cops were into phoning in their own complaints there would be a lot more busts. As for some neighbour/enemy/rival phoning in a phoney complaint, well it is very possible. The question remains however, whether drug charges SHOULD stand up in court. WIthout feeling any sympathy for grow op operators i dont think that busts of such minor significance warrant any bending the protections against unlawful search and seizure. That having been said, I dont know that there will be any precidents set here. Was there not a case of a house fire recently where the cops and firemen found a grow op in a shed? How did that one turn out? Certainly in both cases the RCMP were on site on unrelated matters. Even if the shots fired call was a hoax, the police still had to attend and attending, were made aware of illegal activities.

"911 whats your emergancy" "I heard shots being fired, its sounds like across the street" "and what is your location" "1234 Nowhere street" "ok we are dispatching the police" .....

Police arrive, search the house in question, there was no gun shots, but daddy is doing a number on his little girl.....

I'm willing to bet that would hold up in court. They were there on unrelated charges, but it was still found to be an illegal proceeding.

It doesn't matter how you were caught, point is you were caught, you were doing something you know is illegal, hoax or not, if you don't want to get into trouble, don't do something illegal. Pretty simple concept don't you think.

To many laywers are getting rich putting slime back on teh street, due to technicalities, if you can't prove them innocent, then they deserve to be in jail. If you can't prove them guilty then let them go. But these guys are not innocent then can be proven guilty. Bust them.
--------------------------------------------
If you have that many problems with your neighbors that you want to hoax call them, then go for it, but remember, you better not have anything incrimidating in your house cause someone will call a hoax on you too.
I grew up with Horrible neighbors, every kid on the block feared them, every adult hated them, but you deal with it.

As long as the warrant was written up correctly, the charge will stick. Exigent circumstances (shots fired in a residence) allow police to enter to determine if in relation to this complaint, someone is injured etc....should the grow op be discovered during the initial look see for injured persons, then they take the people into custody, leave the premises and then apply for the warrant. Don't know exactly where or who, but pretty sure its in case law.

Here is what I was told Census Canada's position was/is in the the case of a census worker entering a house to take information for the long census form if invited to do so.

Report any suspected child abuse with information as to why the suspicion. Anything else you might see, smell or otherwise suspect to be against the law, forget it.

I suspect the missing part of the story is whether the police were "invited in" by the occupants when the police knocked on the door. I doubt that they had a search warrant when they entered the house - I assume they entered the house, since it really does not state that.

There is a constitutional law which does protect a person from unreasonable search and seizure. Police cannot go on random "fishing" expeditions around the neighbourhood.

This case gives some idea of what "reasonable" looks like from a legal point of view.

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/privacy/r_silveira.html

Here is what is states in the third to last and last paragraphs:

"The attempt to link drugs automatically to the possible presence of firearms so as to ground a claim of exigent circumstances as justification for pre-warrant securing of premises should be resisted. Officers who enter a house without a warrant cannot be in a better position to ensure their safety than if they enter with a warrant. A general suspicion that firearms may be present should not be used to bolster a claim of urgency."

"The concept of exigent circumstances allows the courts, on rare occasions, to permit the admission of evidence despite its being obtained through a breach of the Charter. That uncommon departure cannot be permitted to operate where it is feasible to obtain prior judicial authorization for a search. To expand exigent circumstances to include police created emergencies, whether arising from bad faith or gross ineptitude, is to undermine seriously the requirement that judicial authorization is required before an entry onto private premises can be made. The long term impact of allowing police practices creating exigent circumstances where minimal foresight could have avoided them dictates that the evidence in this case must be excluded."

Then there is this now famous case of random searches - This is the Supreme Court of Canada:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2007031/posts

"Police approached a man and, while conversing with him, a sniffer dog indicated the presence of drugs. That search turned up cocaine and heroin in the man's bag. He was charged with possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking, as well as possession of heroin.

In this case, the courts found that Gurmakh Kang-Brown could not have had an expectation of privacy because of the odours of the drugs emanating from his bag and into the air.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the sniffer-dog search of Kang-Brown's bag violated his Charter rights.

"The sniff in this case was an unreasonable search since the RCMP officer did not have grounds for reasonable suspicion at the time the dog was called," Justice Ian Binnie wrote."

Now what if the sniffer dog was there at the time just by chance? Calling a sniffer dog in would constitute a search prior to having probable cause. If the dog were there by coincidence and found something it would be more like stopping at a light beside a cop car while smoking a joint maybe. Both cases referred to above do not, however apply to this case as the RCMP would be expected to search for a shooting victim. They do not require a warrant to enter your house, nor do they need permission if they have reason to believe a shooting has taken place or will take place. Regardless of how staunch a supporter of civil rights one is I dont think we want to hobble the police so much that they are on the phone with the judge outside your door while you bleed to death inside.