Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades
I should personally know better than to throw out a generalization like that without a source, shame on me. I don't have the source, I left some of my old criminal law text back in my hometown when I moved back from winter vacation, otherwise I would seek it out for you.
It was highlighting several cases of improper procedure in RCMP, also mentioning how they rarely make it into the media. And also how the charter of rights and freedoms gives very stringent methods of evidence collection with regards to wiretaps, and how the RCMP had a buffer period of essentially testing how far they could push the envelope. As is the case where the judiciary decided that it was contrary to the charter to have sit-in wiretaps in holding cells, trying to elict information etc.
Obviously this isn't the case with gretzky, but I'm trying to give reasons as to why the results could be skewed contrary to what your observations during your job have been.
best I can do without the statistics, sorry  |
That's OK, I see we're talking about Canadian vs. American wiretaps, and I'd gladly defer to someone that knows ANYTHING about the RCMP experience, as it'd be more than I have!
And to be fair, you said "a large percentage." That's not the same as "more than half"--in some cases, 15% could be called "a large percentage."
But we're also talking about two different things--admissibility in court might hinge on some legal technicality (if it's YOUR rights, it's a mere technicality--if it's MINE, it's a substantive right!
), while the tapes themselves accurately reflect what was said (and in context). It's like the drug runner caught with a pound of cocaine but the search was later found to be illegal--the runner still had the dope.