They can use this guys footage!
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
it's not written as "law" either for or against, so some judge (big salary. BIG) made it up.
i thought so too, being that there would be no expectation of any other cunt having the phone unless i gave it to them. and forcefully taking shit off someone is usually known as "theft"
cops hate being wrong. handjobs in the showers, quiet pub lunch.. it gets sorted out.
teh sauce:
The Canadian Press
Posted: Feb 20, 2013 10:00 PM ET
The court says it's okay for police to look through someone's cellphone under certain conditions. The court says it's okay for police to look through someone's cellphone under certain conditions. (CBC)
Ontario's highest court has signalled that the right of police officers to look through someone's phone depends on whether there's a password.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario says it's all right for police to have a cursory look through the phone upon arrest if it's not password protected, but if it is, investigators should get a search warrant.
The court's ruling comes in the case of a man who appealed his robbery conviction, arguing that police breached his charter rights by looking through his phone after his arrest.
Kevin Fearon was arrested in July 2009, after a jewelry stall at a flea market in Toronto was robbed, and police found pictures of a gun and cash as well as a text message about jewelry on his phone.
The Appeal Court denied his appeal, saying that police were allowed to look through Fearon's phone "in a cursory fashion" to see if there was evidence relevant to the crime, but after that they should have stopped to get a search warrant.
The court says if the phone had been password protected or otherwise locked to anyone other than its owner, "it would not have been appropriate" to look through the phone without a search warrant.
The Appeal Court judges referenced a decision in a murder case in which the judge did not allow evidence from a personal electronic device because it "functioned as a mini-computer," which has a high expectation of privacy. The contents of that device were only extracted by a police officer using specialized equipment in that case, the Appeal Court judges noted.
"There was no suggestion in this case that this particular cell phone functioned as a 'mini-computer' nor that its contents were not 'immediately visible to the eye,' the court said in its ruling, released Wednesday.
"Rather, because the phone was not password protected, the photos and the text message were readily available to other users."
The court, though, declined to create a specific new rule for all cellphone searches.
"It may be that some future case will produce a factual matrix that will lead the court to carve out a cellphone exception to the law," the ruling said. "To put it in the modern vernacular: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it."'
Hey Ed, which camera make/model would give that sort of info? I have been thinking about buying one recently, ideally that shows top speed/avg speed etc, maybe even with a small 2-2.5 inch screen that is either attached/carried on your person (wireless?) Also what do people do for mounting them/waterproofing them?
This what I do with my video footage .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n4QjPpGUt4
That's Auckland at any normal day......
Are you trying to get killed? You are not riding defensively. Your road positioning is incorrect. You are forcing yourself into gaps where you could get hurt. Pull your head in before you turn into a stain.
Thanks for your concern but don’t worry, all good, riding for 25 years, only one accident causes by a disqualified driver who thought he has to cut across two lanes without indicating to turn into a side street. Sure I look for gaps but I always have a finger on the brake (and horn).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks