NationStates Jolt Archive

WHITE ROCK, B.C. (http://healthandfitness.sympatico.msn.ca/News/ContentPosting?newsitemid=15558020&feedname=CP-ODDITIES&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True) - A B.C. man probably wishes he had given his 11-month-old son a set of keys to play with instead of a phone, after the infant accidentally dialled 9-1-1 and brought police to dad's marijuana grow operation.

Mounties say a 9-1-1 call came in from a White Rock, B.C. residence Friday morning but whoever was on the other end of the line hung up. Officers arrived at the residence and after numerous knocks on the door went unanswered, they entered the home.

"The gentleman was quite surprised," said White Rock RCMP Const. Janelle Canning.

She said the 29-year-old male, startled by the sudden sight of police, insisted he hadn't made the call.

When it was suggested a child might have dialled, the father objected and said his son was far too young.

That's when police spotted the baby boy, phone in hand.

"We saw him playing with the cordless phone and just pressing all the buttons, so evidently he had called 9-1-1," Canning said.

With that mystery solved, officers began inspecting the residence and soon discovered a 500-plant marijuana grow operation.

The father was arrested and will appear in court in early April on charges of production of a controlled substance and mischief.

The boy was removed from the home by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, though he was later released into his mother's custody.

The mother does not live in the residence and Canning says she had no idea what was going on at the home.
Would the arrest be legal or illegal in your country? Your thoughts?

Perhaps the baby should be charged with public mischief? :tongue:

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad luck, buddy. :D

Good kid.

Good kid.
Not really, as it was hardly a concious act made on the kid's part due to the fact it knew its parent was willfully breaking the law. Just massively bad luck on the dad's part.

CH, weren't you leaving?

Would the arrest be legal or illegal in your country? Your thoughts?

No, the police had probable cause to search the house because of the suspicious call.


Perhaps the baby should be charged with public mischief? :tongue:

They'd charge the parent for the phone call if anyone was to get a criminal offense.

CH, weren't you leaving?
No-one every leaves NSG :p

No-one every leaves NSG :p

Not for very long no.

No, the police had probable cause to search the house because of the suspicious call.

Questionable. They certainly had probable cause to enter the house based on the call. I'm unsure if, once they spoke to the father and ascertained that it was not a legitimate call, that they had grounds to continue the search


They'd charge the parent for the phone call if anyone was to get a criminal offense.

You can't charge someone for someone else's crime.

Questionable. They certainly had probable cause to enter the house based on the call. I'm unsure if, once they spoke to the father and ascertained that it was not a legitimate call, that they had grounds to continue the search

You know more about it than I do. But they could prolly just get away with saying that they believed there was a chance that there could have been something amiss? Or maybe they had permission to search the premises from the father (he'd have to be a real moron)?


You can't charge someone for someone else's crime.

Then why do they charge adults with things because of their children so often?

You can't charge someone for someone else's crime.

Aren't parents liable for the crimes their small children (12 years or younger) commit ?

As in: The kid would get the fine, but the parents have to pay.

If he had 500 plants growing in there, I'm sure the police smelled something when the door opened.

Smelling marijuana (whether just growing or being smoked) would be enough probable cause to search the house.

And you can't really hide 500 growing plants under your bed.

Aren't parents liable for the crimes their small children (12 years or younger) commit ?

As in: The kid would get the fine, but the parents have to pay.

it's...tricky. Often parents won't be guilty of the underlying crime of the child, but guilty of a broader "parental negligence" which allowed the child to commit the act.

You know more about it than I do. But they could prolly just get away with saying that they believed there was a chance that there could have been something amiss? Or maybe they had permission to search the premises from the father (he'd have to be a real moron)?

it's....possible. I guess if they went with the argument of "we were afraid someone was held hostage in the house and tried to call out" then MAYBE, but they saw the kid playing with the phone...

Then why do they charge adults with things because of their children so often?

You'd have to find me a specific example of when an adult was charged SPECIFICALLY for the acts of the child, and not situations of general "parental neglect" as I outlined earlier (there are also circumstances in which a child acts under the direction of a parent to commit an illegal act, but that usually falls under traditional notions of co-conspirator and accomplice liability).

They were clearly the kid's plants

They were clearly the kid's plants

Bad kid!

Bad kid!

No. Smart kid. I think we have the beginnings of a criminal mastermind here...

Would the arrest be legal or illegal in your country? Your thoughts?

Perhaps the baby should be charged with public mischief? :tongue:

bad luck. but whether or not the search is legal is up to the lawyers.

No. Smart kid. I think we have the beginnings of a criminal mastermind here...

"that will teach daddy to buy the INFERIOR brand of diapers!"

"that will teach daddy to buy the INFERIOR brand of diapers!"

Stewie Griffin, anyone?:D

Aren't parents liable for the crimes their small children (12 years or younger) commit ?

As in: The kid would get the fine, but the parents have to pay.
The father was charged with "mischief" as well as the drug charges. Perhaps the father is being charged for the babies' call after all, which I don't think they can do.

Perhaps the father can find a lawyer to defend against the police entry....the question being whether the police are allowed by law to enter a premise based upon a 911 call?

Kid was probably a mistake...

I guess there's always gunna be weeds among the grass.

Kid was probably a mistake...

I guess there's always gunna be weeds among the grass.

Holy sh...:eek:

I'm a Canadian senior high school student studying law...
I'm not so sure they had a search warrant for anything, and definitely not for marijuana.
There was also a ruling in Saskatchewan about the smelling of pot:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/02/12/where-there-s-smoke-there-s-not-probable-cause-sask-court-finds-pot-smell-not-grounds-for-search-arrest.aspx

I'm not sure if the same rule applies in B.C., but apparently B.C.'s pot-smoker population isn't exactly small (nothing against B.C. when I say this), so I wouldn't be surprised.

He could probably appeal using the lack of a warrant as grounds for dismissing the charges, and get off on a legal technicality. Oh well.

I'm a Canadian senior high school student studying law...
I'm not so sure they had a search warrant for anything, and definitely not for marijuana.
There was also a ruling in Saskatchewan about the smelling of pot:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/02/12/where-there-s-smoke-there-s-not-probable-cause-sask-court-finds-pot-smell-not-grounds-for-search-arrest.aspx

I'm not sure if the same rule applies in B.C., but apparently B.C.'s pot-smoker population isn't exactly small (nothing against B.C. when I say this), so I wouldn't be surprised.

He could probably appeal using the lack of a warrant as grounds for dismissing the charges, and get off on a legal technicality. Oh well.

Again, exigent circumstances. Allows them entry into the house. I would need to know more about what happened next and how they FOUND the drugs, to give a more informed opinion.

Interesting point, the article you cite draws a distinction between BURNT marijuana and growing marijuana. IE if it's burnt, he might not have it anymore.

There's no valid reason for pot possession (or pot anything else, for that matter) to be illegal.

That said, the arrest was formally (as opposed to substantially) fine. They had a legitimate reason for entering the house in the manner they did; if they had discovered an act whose illegality was considerably less controversial no one would be objecting.

They shouldn't have arrested the guy, but that's just because they shouldn't be arresting people for possessing pot in general. The procedure, however, was quite alright.

Holy sh...:eek:

Was it something I said?

Was it something I said?

Who am I quoting again?;)

There's no valid reason for pot possession (or pot anything else, for that matter) to be illegal.

That said, the arrest was formally (as opposed to substantially) fine. They had a legitimate reason for entering the house in the manner they did; if they had discovered an act whose illegality was considerably less controversial no one would be objecting.

They shouldn't have arrested the guy, but that's just because they shouldn't be arresting people for possessing pot in general. The procedure, however, was quite alright.

To be fair (this coming from a legalization advocate) he was growing 500 plants, which really isn't for personal use.

To be fair (this coming from a legalization advocate) he was growing 500 plants, which really isn't for personal use.

Why should "personal use" have anything to do with it?

Pot should be totally legal and unrestricted, period.

Why should "personal use" have anything to do with it?

Pot should be totally legal and unrestricted, period.

Those who favor decriminalization of marijuana do so on the basis that the amount possessed is for personal use. There is no political future for those who, like yourself, favor legalization.

This has been another episode of "stupid criminals".:)

Perhaps the correct answer as to whether the police overstepped their mandate:

[15] The exercise of this power inevitably interferes with protected privacy interests. Accordingly, even where justified, its exercise remains closely circumscribed. This is clear from the following passage of the Chief Justice’s reasons (at para. 22):


… the importance of the police duty to protect life warrants and justifies a forced entry into a dwelling in order to ascertain the health and safety of a 911 caller. … However, I emphasize that the intrusion must be limited to the protection of life and safety. The police have authority to investigate the 911 call and, in particular, to locate the caller and determine his or her reasons for making the call and provide such assistance as may be required. The police authority for being on private property in response to a 911 call ends there. They do not have further permission to search premises or otherwise intrude on a resident’s privacy or property.
Above obtained from Common Law Entry For Distress 911 Calls (http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.com/2008/07/common-law-entry-for-distress-911-calls.html).

Why should "personal use" have anything to do with it?

Pot should be totally legal and unrestricted, period.

It's a personal belief of mine that it, along with all other psychoactive drugs (tobacco, alcohol, cactus etc) should not be able to be sold or traded, but production for personal use or gifting to others should be legal.

Perhaps the correct answer as to whether the police overstepped their mandate:


Above obtained from Common Law Entry For Distress 911 Calls (http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.com/2008/07/common-law-entry-for-distress-911-calls.html).

It sounds like they definitely overstepped their mandate in Common Law terms. I haven't read the link in the OP, but the one I read in my local paper didn't say whether or not he allowed them to search.

It's a personal belief of mine that it, along with all other psychoactive drugs (tobacco, alcohol, cactus etc) should not be able to be sold or traded, but production for personal use or gifting to others should be legal.

Then your personal belief is wrong.

It sounds like they definitely overstepped their mandate in Common Law terms. I haven't read the link in the OP, but the one I read in my local paper didn't say whether or not he allowed them to search.
In the OP, it states that the police "spotted the baby boy, phone in hand". Even if the father allowed the search, it would appear that the police overstepped their mandate, based on the info in my previous post.

Then your personal belief is wrong.

Would you care to back that up?

Would you care to back that up?
That would be impossible to do. Next.

Would you care to back that up?

well, you see, it's very simple

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p233/poliwanacraca/aynrandposter3.jpg

well, you see, it's very simple

Do you masturbate to her every night or something? Jeez...once or twice I got a chuckle out of it, but now it's just getting annoying.

Find a new gimmick Art, because this one is getting annoying.