1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
  1. Alfa
    SUPREME COURT ASKED TO CLARIFY RULING ON POLICE SEARCHES

    WINNIPEG - In a rare move, the federal prosecutor has asked the
    Supreme Court to clarify a ruling made earlier this year concerning a
    Winnipeg man whose pockets were searched by police.

    Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Philip Henry
    Mann, who was searched by Winnipeg police. The court ruled individuals
    must have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including privacy over
    what's in their pockets.

    Police said Mann matched the description of a break-and-enter suspect.
    After feeling a soft object in Mann's pocket during a pat-down search,
    officers pulled a bag of marijuana out of his pocket.

    The Supreme Court upheld a Manitoba court's ruling to acquit Mann,
    saying that reaching into Mann's pocket was "problematic" because the
    soft object didn't pose a security risk to the officer.

    Federal Crown prosecutor David Frankel has asked the Supreme Court to
    re-examine parts of the Mann case, saying the court's definitions were
    vague.

    "It should be clearly spelled out so that police forces can instruct
    their officers accordingly, and the public also knows when they
    interact with the police what the limits of police powers are," he
    says.

    Mann's lawyer, Amanda Sansregret, has already filed her objection to
    the review. She thought the matter was settled.

    "This isn't an appropriate case for a re-hearing," she says. "There is
    no reason to clarify the reasons for judgement. The reasons for
    judgement are as clear as a bell."

    The Mann ruling has already been cited twice in cases across the
    country in limiting how the police can search people.

    The Supreme Court will examine the application for the review later
    this fall.

Comments

To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!