"Reasonable Search and Seizure"

[StoneMtn]

I have seen a number of people post on here asking if anyone knows anything about the authority of Canadian police to search people and vehicles during traffic stops. I came across this recent judgment today, so I thought I would edit it for clarity, and post an excerpt, in case anyone's interested...

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Criminal Division

REGINA

v.

DAVID KENNETH PEARDON

Place of Hearing:

Vernon, B.C.

Date of Hearing:

March 16, 2005

Date of Judgment:

March 16, 2005

[1] THE COURT: The accused, David Kevin Peardon, is charged with the offence of possession of cannabis marihuana for the purpose of trafficking … a voir dire was held to determine whether certain of the Charter rights of the accused were breached by the police while conducting their investigation of him .. Specifically … that the police arbitrarily detained him, conducted an unreasonable search and seizure, and did not afford him an opportunity to retain and instruct counsel without delay.

[2] The facts are that shortly before 10:19 on the 9th of October, 2003, Corporal Baulkham and Constable Parsons, members of the RCMP, were returning to the police station in Revelstoke, travelling west along the Trans Canada Highway. Approximately eight kilometres east of Revelstoke, they noticed a vehicle driving in an easterly direction at seventy-five kilometres per hour in a ninety-kilometre speed zone.

[3] Corporal Baulkham turned the police vehicle around, activated his emergency equipment, and pulled the still-slow-moving vehicle over ten kilometres east of Revelstoke. The speed of the vehicle, the fact that the driver's window was rolled down partway, and that the vehicle was travelling along the white fog line, led the police officers to conclude that the operator of the vehicle might be impaired.

[4] At approximately 10:19, Corporal Baulkham ... approached the vehicle operated by the accused, and ... asked for a driver's licence and registration, and having been told it was a rental car, the rental agreement. While at the vehicle, he noticed fast-food wrappers, coffee cups, a cellphone and personal luggage in the vehicle. The accused was very nervous. Within seconds, Corporal Baulkham concluded that the accused's ability to drive was not impaired, but he was suspicious, based on the nervousness of the accused, and the items he had seen in the vehicle, that he might be dealing with someone hauling contraband.

[5] The officer returned to his vehicle and did record checks … There were no outstanding warrants, but the accused had a criminal record which included a conviction for cultivation of marihuana, from an unspecified date, and a firearms prohibition from 2001.

[6] In the meantime, Constable Parsons … went to the accused's vehicle and asked … for the registration … While at the accused's vehicle, he noticed luggage in the back seat and fast-food wrappers on the floor. Within seconds, the accused produced the vehicle registration, at which time Parsons noted that his hand was shaking.

… By this time, Corporal Baulkham had confirmed the validity of the vehicle insurance, and had also done the other record checks … decided to continue the detention of the accused as an investigate detention under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, based on his observations and his training and experience.

[8] The accused was asked to exit his vehicle, and Corporal Baulkham instructed Constable Parsons to detain the accused under that Act. Parsons detained the accused, advised him that he was being detained under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, handcuffed him, and read to him his rights under the Charter. The accused said he wanted to speak to counsel. He was not afforded an opportunity to speak to counsel at that time.

[9] Corporal Baulkham, … had a police service dog in the vehicle … trained and certified to search for six drugs: marihuana, hash, cocaine, heroin, crystal meth and psilocybin. …

[11] When the dog sat by the accused's leg, Baulkham … instructed Constable Parsons at 10:40 to arrest the accused, and he and the dog continued with the search…

[12] On the arrest of the accused, Parsons searched him and found a large amount in twenty-dollar bills. No drugs were found. Thereafter, Corporal Baulkham, with the car keys which he had earlier removed from the vehicle, used the remote keyless entry to open the trunk. After doing so, he was able to smell fresh green marihuana. He then closed the trunk and commencing at 10:52, made phone calls to federal prosecutors for the purpose of ascertaining whether a search warrant was required.

[13] A substantial amount of marihuana was eventually seized by the officers. … They arrived at the police station in Revelstoke at 11:27. A phone call was placed to counsel of the accused's choice at 11:47 and returned shortly thereafter by counsel.

THE INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION

[14] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Mann [2004] S.C.J. No. 49 recognized that although there is no general police power to detain individuals, there is a limited power of investigative detention, but such detentions can only be justified at common law where the police officer has "reasonable grounds to detain". The common law power, based on reasonable grounds, arises out of the need to balance the individual citizen's privacy interests with societal interests in effective policing.

… the basis … remains a constellation of objectively discernible facts which gives the detaining officer reasonable cause to suspect that the detainee is criminally implicated in the activity under investigation.

[16] In this case …The reasonable grounds offered by the officer were the presence … of food wrappers, coffee cups, a cellphone and personal luggage. Additionally, the accused was very nervous, had a conviction of unspecified date for cultivation of marihuana, and was subject to a firearms prohibition. These objectively discernible facts do not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The facts do not point to the commission of a particular crime …

[17] Corporal Baulkham also conceded that many motorists, including himself, are nervous when stopped by the police. Extreme nervousness, as in this case, does not of itself raise grounds which would otherwise objectively fail to meet a standard which passes constitutional scrutiny…

[18] Subjectively, the police officer, based in part on his training and experience, suspected that the accused might be involved in transporting contraband. … In order to determine whether objectively speaking the police officer had reasonable grounds for his suspicion, it is necessary to ask whether a reasonable person, apprised of the facts known to Corporal Baulkham, would have had a suspicion that the accused was in possession of contraband…

[19] The answer must clearly be no. While a suspicion may have arisen as to the reason for the nervousness of the accused, it is much more than a reasonable leap to conclude that the nervousness is connected to an offence under that Act. All that differentiates the reaction of the police officer to these facts, and the reaction of anyone else, was his experience. Based on that experience, he acted on a hunch that the accused might be in possession of contraband. I am satisfied that the detention was not only unlawful but also arbitrary.

THE SEARCH

[20] Corporal Baulkham searched the accused's vehicle without a warrant. Such a search is presumed to be unreasonable, and may only be justified if authorized by statute, or is incidental to investigative arrest or detention. In this case, there is no statutory authority. The police officer, however, says that the search of the trunk of the vehicle was incidental to the arrest of Mr. Peardon.

… The continued use of the dog strongly suggests that the search of the trunk, rather than being incidental to arrest, was to provide evidence after the fact to confirm the officer's hunch.

… The Supreme Court of Canada … has said that the search power is limited to a search necessary to ensure officer safety, but only when the facts on the ground indicate that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the arresting officer's safety, or the safety of others, is at risk.

[23] The power to search on an investigative detention is much more narrowly circumscribed than on arrest. Search coincident with investigative detentions must be brief, minimally intrusive, and cannot be an arrest in the guise of detention. In this case, the detention … could not be described as brief…

[24] It is important to remember that the reason for his initial detention as a suspected impaired driver had vanished within seconds … Nor was the detention conducted in a reasonable manner … the accused was handcuffed on the side of the Trans Canada Highway for ten minutes prior to his arrest. It is also clear from the evidence that the police officers intended to use the period of time between detention and arrest to discover the evidence which would have justified their hunch.

[25] Additionally, during this period of time, the accused, although advised of his right to counsel, was not afforded any opportunity to consult with a lawyer…

[26] Did the use of a dog amount to a search? The Crown says that having the dog use his nose to detect the smell of illicit drugs emanating from the defendant and his vehicle does not amount to a search…

Here, the dog was being used while the accused was being detained, to determine whether the accused was in possession of drugs, and thereby provide the reasonable and probable grounds for arrest. This was a search of a person and not a place. The information disclosed clearly tended "to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choice" of Mr. Peardon. I am satisfied that it was a warrantless search of the accused.

[29] A warrantless search is prima facie, but not conclusively, unreasonable. The Charter is designed to protect legitimate privacy interests. Jack's search in this case revealed, and could only reveal, the presence of illicit drugs on the person of the accused. No other personal information about the accused was revealed to the police officer when the dog sat by Mr. Peardon's leg. Citizens do not have a legitimate privacy interest in the possession of contraband drugs. While there was some evidence that a sniffing dog can be wrong, the evidence in this case did not lead me to the conclusion that this dog was wrong.

[30] I do not overlook the fact that no drugs were found on the accused. That does not mean that the smell of drugs did not emanate from his person. …. I am, therefore, satisfied that absent the unlawful detention, the sniff search of the accused would not have breached Section 8 of the Charter. For similar reasons, had there not been an unlawful detention, the sniff search of the trunk, while unnecessary, would not have brought the accused's Section 8 rights into play.

… The sniff search … was minimally intrusive and led the police officer to the search of the trunk. I am not satisfied that the search of the trunk was entirely incidental to the accused's arrest, and even assuming that the police officer should have had a warrant, that search did nothing more than reveal the contraband which was discoverable in any event…

[32] However, having regard for not just one, but several Charter breaches, I am satisfied that the evidence must be excluded. While the evidence was discoverable and non-conscriptive, the accumulation of breaches is so serious that to admit the evidence would bring the administration of justice indo disrepute…

… Because it was an arbitrary and unlawful detention, there was no lawful right to search. Finally, the accused was not afforded an opportunity to consult with counsel... This is significant as, at best, it shows an insensitivity by the police to the importance of the rights of the accused under the Charter. The police officer did not provide access to counsel because they did not intend to question the accused before he had had an opportunity to speak to a lawyer. Without delay means without delay, given all the circumstances of the detention or arrest, including the necessity to secure a crime scene, preserve evidence, and ensure the safety of the police officer, the accused and members of the public, if any.

[35] It also must take into consideration the availability of a phone or other means of communication with counsel. None of those factors would have prevented prompt access in this case. Phone access could have been made available within minutes of the defendant being stopped. The police were able to make phone contact with Crown counsel from the side of the highway. That could have been made available to Mr. Peardon. It was approaching two hours before he got his phone call, despite his having requested immediate access.

[36] Having regard for the breaches of Section 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter, the evidence obtained as a result will be excluded….

[39] THE COURT: … dismissed.

Link to judgment:

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2005/01/p05_0117.htm

[Im going home Donny]

I heard that if one has anything they'd rather not show in yer car....that keeping it under a lock is very usefull. 'Apparrently' the 'lock' requires a whole lotta redtape to undo.

If you're a private person this is probably information that might be worth looking into.

[bradm]

ISTR Velvet saying something similar: if you have something on your person (e.g., in a coat or pants pocket), as opposed to sitting, say, in/on the console of the car, then the police have a much tougher time getting at it, as they have to do a personal search, rather than just looking in the car.

Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and don't really know if the above is true or not.

Aloha,

Brad

[Kaidy Mae]

Wow! I'm certainly glad that carrying fast-food wrappers, coffee cups and a cell phone in your car doesn't infer criminal activity.

"Marihuana"? Hey StoneMtn, where'd the J go?

[StoneMtn]

For some unknown reason, within Canadian criminal law it's always spelled with the "h".

[CyberHippie]

The reasonable grounds offered by the officer were the presence … of food wrappers, coffee cups, a cellphone and personal luggage.

That's rich...

A friend of mine has a shaved head and was pulled over one time for 'looking suspicious'. The cop even went as far as to say "what are you listening to? Eminem?" It just got worse and worse for him as the cop was looking for a reason to bust him. In the end he spend 8 days in the Don, because he had lost his wallet two years prior and there was some warrant out for him, based on something the dude who had his ID had done... Talk about a bad set of circumstances...

[bouche]

Any vacation or trip where you rent a car and bring clothes with you would likely find you with luggage in your car and food wrappers. I don't always put shit in the trunk. That's for people with kids in the backseat.

That was a great read

[MoMack]

How about to play devil's advocate and say that the Charter went to far in this case.

Honestly people, this guy had a trunk load of pot and whoever he got it from paid for a big time lawyer to make sure the guy would get off and not rat him out.

There was reason to pull him over - the suspicion of impairment, which we all would agree with I bet, drunk drivers are a bad thing, regardless etc. - once he was pulled over the officer listed off things that made his spidey sense tingle. a) fast food wrappers rented car c) Revelstoke in October!!! d) very nervous driver e) one guy in a car with personal belongings in the back seat - whats the trunk for?

As a result of all these things it seemed worth it to check him out. He's got priors for cultivation and a gun problem. Then on top of that the dog takes an interest!

You're telling me that given all of that information we can't trust a police officer to do his job? I mean, take your personal beliefs about prohabition of marijuana out of the equation - fact is its illegal. The other fact is, this cop is trained to act on his hunches to serve and protect based on what is legal and what isn't. Seems to me that this guy did an excellent job and should be given cudos for it (excellent as in did what WE pay him to do, and enforce OUR laws).

Instead he goes to court, loses to some hot shot criminal defence lawyer, goes back out to do his job and things "whats the point". "I'm not going to arrest the bling bling car I just pulled over with the black guy in the front with a frosty nose and what looks like a gun sticking out from the front of his pants because he'll just beat it in court anyways"

Not what anybody wants to hear I'm sure - but come on people...

caveat: I am in no way saying I am for or against any of the laws here - just that they are the laws and the police are to enforce them, right or wrong.

[MoMack]

Wow! I'm certainly glad that carrying fast-food wrappers, coffee cups and a cell phone in your car doesn't infer criminal activity.

ps. funny thing is in a lot of U.S. states, having a dead sticker on your car is considered probable cause for a search. Even funnier thing is, it works!

[CyberHippie]

No doubt. The officer was obviously dead on in this case. But... Should have done things properly so the evidence wasn't thrown out.

[bouche]

There was reason to pull him over - the suspicion of impairment, which we all would agree with I bet, drunk drivers are a bad thing, regardless etc. - once he was pulled over the officer listed off things that made his spidey sense tingle. a) fast food wrappers rented car c) Revelstoke in October!!! d) very nervous driver e) one guy in a car with personal belongings in the back seat - whats the trunk for?

This is where I have trouble with it. Where is there a law that says you have to put your stuff in the trunk? Sometimes the backseat is way more convenient. I've been on my own in a rental and I put my one bag in the back seat, along with my garbage from road food.

As for going 75 instead of 90, was he disrupting traffic? Why is 75 such a problem and enough to get pulled over? I see people going WAY below the speedlimit all the time, and I just get pissed off and take my first opportunity to pass them. I don't imagine that they have weed in the trunk.

Ok, he DID have weed in the trunk, but now we must consider that weed really shouldn't be a reason to arrest someone.

I just found out that weed now has a new medicinal use... right here. So I wish weed would stop being a reason to nail people. It's got too many benefits in this world.

[MoMack]

Bouche:

You kind of help with one of my points - thing is "weed" is a reason to nail people. I think in order to properly assess the situation you have to remove the pre-conceived notions that come up with that. Here we have a cop that had a huntch based on a list of things and he was right.

Plus - unless it was edited out - the reason for pulling him over and the initial detention was not in contention. Yes it disappeared within seconds, but it was not seen as insignificant with respect to pulling him over. It was not racial profiling or harrassment, but a police officer doing his duty. After doing that, other suspicions arose.

Point is that we're handcuffing our own law enforcement. There job isn't to decide right or wrong, its not to apply morals, its to apply the law as written in our criminal code, controlled drug and substances act etc. etc. Yes also in the Charter - but where does the line get drawn? Would a pack of papers with the junk food have been enough for you? Do we trust our police officers at all?

What if it was a gun not weed. Or how about the guy that got off recently with a trunk FULL of blow because of the racial profiling argument? I mean when do we stop hiding and fess up to the fact that the person broke the law?

[Tooly]

i was standing at a bus stop one night, and the cops pulled over and asked me what my name was, i told them, they ran it, saw that i had been arrested a few weeks prior in toronto, still pending court and all that, and they got out of the car, came over, said i matched the discription of a bNe suspect, when i asked what the descripotion was, the cop looked me up and down, and named what i was wearing, then asked to see into my backpack, well i showed him what was in the main compartment, some clothes, and they opened the back door, told me to sit down as i was being detained under suspition (sp), no rights were read,this other cop showed up, and asked if the first cop had searched my bag, he said yup its clean, the other cop sez well im gonna take a look too, so he opens the other door nearer my backpack, and finds a quarterpound of pot. it got thrown outta court as they never read my rights to me when they said i was being detained

i was speechless when the judge read me that verdict, WOOHOO!

its real good to know your rights, or at least get a lawyer

[Tooly]

was thrown out on the illegal search & seizure, and not reading my rights i should say

[Fuckholes]

das good jah!

[timouse]

years ago, i was pulled over in my dead sticker covered car and searched during a roadside stop...i threw a cigarette butt out the window while being tailed by a cop. both officers came up to my car and said "good evening, son. (i was nearly 30, they looked 15.) whaddya doing in there, blowing a joint?" they then pointed out a headlight that was out and told me that they were going to search my car (full of fast food litter & coffee cups...) they found nothing, gave me a notice of report to get the headlight fixed & let me go home.

months later while emptying the glove box i found a small tin with a quarter and some papers in it that had definiltely been in there the night the cops were rooting around. thank you the engineers at vw for making the glove box insanely deep

i spoke to a lawyer shortly after that who explained that probable cause was a linguistically loose phrase, and in my case they were within their rights to search my car. i was living in hamilton at the time, just after the 2nd set of hamilton dead shows, and more people seemed to have figured out what the sticker covered car was about....

robert pirsig riffed about cops in one of his books, basically saying that they are a cultural immune system. anything that looks weird or different or dangerous gets scrutinized, and worse depending on the circumstances. i would imagine that revelstoke in the fall is prime time to nab people bringing that crop to town, and was pleasantly surprised to see that the guy was let off.

thanks for posting this, stonemtn! very good reading indeeed...

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

probable cause was a linguistically loose phrase

That is pretty cute. Ain't language wonderful. Move the air the right way and people can get away with pretty much anything.

[grateful_dave]

Bouche:

Point is that we're handcuffing our own law enforcement. There job isn't to decide right or wrong, its not to apply morals, its to apply the law as written in our criminal code, controlled drug and substances act etc. etc. Yes also in the Charter - but where does the line get drawn? Would a pack of papers with the junk food have been enough for you? Do we trust our police officers at all?

no i dont trust police officers. ive dealt with them!! what about you mo, how many times have you had to seriously deal with the popo? have they treated you with respect every time? well not me. WE pay them! WE are supposed to respect them! i have never, ever had a cop show me respect. i wear a colourful shirt and im a bad guy! bs! 95% of coppers out there take there power way too seriously. enough, as to think they own a town. you of any people should know this mo! remember dover? and no im not just talkin about the legality ganj.(thats a whole other legal issue that could be discussed for days also). im talking about routine traffic stops and searches. since when does a dead sticker refer to a "routine" stop. or a couple of hippies driving down the road, is that reasonable grounds mo? im not just talking about the case in hand, im talking cops in general. if driving slower in the fog is so bad, maybe he should have been speeding, then they could have maybe had reasonable grounds to pull him over! ok, enough rant, but my point here is that cops use there authority to a point that i think should be illegal. ok, there here to do a job. then do it properly.

on another note, does anyone know the legality of this?

crimestoppers. can someone trespass on your property, then call crimestoppers and then say they have seen a crime being committed? twice. how can this so called informant be trusted? hes a criminal in the eyes of the law(trespassing). he doesnt have to show his face or reveal his name, but its ok for him to trespass!

sometimes i wish i was a lawyer just so i could fight all of these stupid f$%^ing laws we got in this beautiful country.

[Kaidy Mae]

MoMack, interesting that you brought up guns. While reading through these posts I was wondering, Okay, how would I feel if the trunk contained something that I strongly oppose? If it had've been guns, it would be upsetting that he would get off. HOWEVER, there are policies and procedures that police officers must follow in order to protect our rights as free citizens. If the police wanted to arrest this man and punish him for having plants (or guns or whatever) in his trunk, there is a proper way for them to do so. If the search and seizure isn't "reasonable", they are the ones in the wrong.

I think the reason why some of us (you with me Bouche? ) seem to dismiss this case as frivolous, is because while someone may have broken the law, it is hard to see that person as a threat to society. To fight these charges costs money. Who do you think pays for that? Marihuana charges tie up our justice system and cost taxpayers a great deal of money. Am I glad the charges were dropped because once upon a time I may have allegedly partaken in the act of smoking a joint (never inhaled, mind you)? No, I care as someone who hears about people getting shot and killed in Toronto nearly every day, while tax dollars are put towards trying to put gardeners in jail. I appreciate your devil's advocate stance MoMack and you have a lot of great points. I just think there are more immediate and necessary needs for tax dollars.

What I find odd in all of these posts is the mention of priors. StoneMtn, if a cop radios in a name/identification and the person has priors, are those priors then grounds for a search? I find it odd that prior charges seem so consequential when a jury wouldn't be permitted knowledge of them in court.

[bradm]

Here's a question that isn't addressed in the judgement: what happened to the pot? OK, the search wasn't done properly, so the charges were dismissed, but can the police/crown still seize the pot and dispose of it the way they usually do?

KM's question about what people's opinions would be if the trunk contained guns led me to ask this, because, with guns, the immediate danger to society is the guns themselves, and I assume the crown would want to get them off the street as well as getting the trafficker in jail. If the charges against the trafficker are dismissed, would the guns still be seizable?

Aloha,

Brad

[Kaidy Mae]

Oh no! The man with all the answers is asking us a question?

Just kidding bradm. Good question though. I think if the contents seized are illegal they can still be disposed of even if the accused isn't found guilty. I'm not certain of this, but I have learned a lot watching Law & Order.

[Steve from Cleveland]

ISTR Velvet saying something similar: if you have something on your person (e.g., in a coat or pants pocket), as opposed to sitting, say, in/on the console of the car, then the police have a much tougher time getting at it, as they have to do a personal search, rather than just looking in the car.

This is interesting to me... Perhaps this is another difference between the states & Canada? In the states (Ohio at least) a cop is allowed to physically search one's person. HOWEVER, said jhonny law is NOT permitted to search one's car without one of 2 things: 1) A search Warrant 2) 'Plain View' Probable Cause.

Brad, what you said, happened to me. I was pulled over, had a pipe and some herb in my pocket. I was arrested... If I had stashed it in my car, I would not have been... Unless it had been in plain view to the cop, then he would have been allowed to search my vehicle without a warrant.

So I guess what I am wondering is, When in Canada, is it permissible for the cops to search your car relatively easily? Here, they always ask you "So you won't mind if I take a look around in your car, then?" If you say yes, you're screwed, because you just consented to a search. I have said NO several times, and always had that request respected. A friend of mine had something like this happen, the cop asked him if he could look in the car, he said NO, cop searched anyhow, friend repeatedly told cop "You do not have my permission to search my vehicle. Please stop digging through my personal belongings, etc" Cop found all kinds of goodies, and the charges were all dismissed, because friend SPECIFICALLY STATED that the cop does NOT have permission to search.

Anyhow, I agree with those who say that cops are for the most part there to protect us, though will point out that the majority of them are on some kind of ego-trip and ROUTINELY over-step their bounds.

'

S/C

[timouse]

So I guess what I am wondering is, When in Canada, is it permissible for the cops to search your car relatively easily? Here, they always ask you "So you won't mind if I take a look around in your car, then?" If you say yes, you're screwed, because you just consented to a search. I have said NO several times, and always had that request respected. A friend of mine had something like this happen, the cop asked him if he could look in the car, he said NO, cop searched anyhow, friend repeatedly told cop "You do not have my permission to search my vehicle. Please stop digging through my personal belongings, etc" Cop found all kinds of goodies, and the charges were all dismissed, because friend SPECIFICALLY STATED that the cop does NOT have permission to search.

S/C

wow. i would be terrified to say no to a cop...very interesting that the shoe's on the other foot south of the 49th. i had always understood that your car was fair game (again with that wonderfully elastic disclaimer "probable cause..."), but for a cop to search my person requires full-on cause (pound of pot on the dash sort of thing).

interesting to get the US perspective on things

[MoMack]

Belly:

I agree with what you're saying. Just again, I don't think its applicable here. The situation is simply this a) there was acceptable cause to pull him over based on the thought that he was impaired - that was not argued with in court.

The question becomes, once he's been pulled over, what is enough to constitute probable cause. I say that what was found/reported - together with the nervousness and the officer's "hunch" should be enough. And I reckon that most of you would agree had it been guns and therefore what most people here would consider a threat to society. While I agree that the plants shouldn't be considered a threat to society, the fact is that our current system of laws sees pot as a threat, and therefore, in this situation I think that the bar for probable cause is set too high.

This isn't a bully cop with nothing better to do but flex his muscles, its a legitimate case of him pulling someone over and pursuing the leads/signs etc. that were presented to him afterwards. This is what our police are for. Unfortunately a) they aren't allowed to do their job due to the strength of the Charer (which I normally agree with) and our laws are out of whack in that we still worry too much about certain lifestyle choices that aren't that terrible (though I could make another argument there... )

[dancingbear]

the officers 'hunch' momack, should NOT be enough. cause what is not stated is how many of nervous people he has searched who he had 'hunches' about whom were innocent of all crimes including the bullshit pot ones.