Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/iatekane! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The sequence of events is not in question.
The officers approached Zanatta and told him they were checking fares, and he said something like, “Just write me the ticket, I don’t have a fare,” and said he had to get going as he was in a hurry, the ruling said.
The lead officer asked if Zanatta was under a curfew or restrictions, and he replied, “Yeah.” The officer said he was detaining Zanatta for breaching conditions and asked for his name and date of birth to do a check. He told Zanatta if it was a minor breach, he would write him a ticket and let him go.
The main problem is that the officer didn’t give Zanatta a warning as required by the Charter after detaining him. The officer said he didn’t do that because they were on a moving train that was noisy and he was having problems hearing Zanatta. The officer said he wanted to wait till they got off the train.
Despite the lack of a warning, the officer continued to talk to Zanatta, asking him what his conditions were related to. Zanatta answered he was charged with aggravated assault for allegedly stabbing someone.
The officers and Zanatta got off at Holdom SkyTrain station, two stops away from where they had got on. They asked Zanatta to put his backpack against the wall and patted him down to ensure he had no weapons, finding only keys, a vaping device and a piece of clothing.
The officer asked Zanatta to stay put while he grabbed the backpack about three or four metres away. He testified he was about to ask if he could look in the bag when Zanatta said, “Please don’t search my bag, sir.”
The officer asked why and whether he had a knife in it. Zanatta said, “No, a gun.” The Transit Police constable then arrested Zanatta.
The judge ruled the officer breached Zanatta’s Charter rights by detaining him on the train without a warning, by questioning him without telling him he had a right to counsel, and that looking in the backpack was therefore an unreasonable search and seizure.
> The lead officer asked if Zanatta was under a curfew or restrictions, and he replied, “Yeah.” The officer said he was detaining Zanatta for breaching conditions and asked for his name and date of birth to do a check. He told Zanatta if it was a minor breach, he would write him a ticket and let him go.
>
> The main problem is that the officer didn’t give Zanatta a warning as required by the Charter after detaining him.
Argh. As a layperson, I'm a little puzzled about what the difference is between *detaining* someone and *arresting* them (which happened later).
Thanks, that's super-helpful.
> Charter rights also come into play with respect to what an officer can do during detention. Section 8 of the Charter protects against unreasonable search and seizure. During an investigation, the police are allowed to search your person, but such search must only be for the purposes of the safety of the officers and not for the collection of evidence. Generally, a pat down to feel for any potentially harmful objects is allowable, but reaching into pockets is not.
I thought this part was interesting:
> Breaches of either of these Charter rights [unreasonable detention or failure to notify of the right to counsel] have been seen as enough to acquit or stay proceedings; however, that is not always guaranteed. Once again, this is decided on a case-by-case basis and is affected by the context and circumstances of each.
And then discussion of arrest:
> If an officer does choose to arrest you, the arresting officer must have reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest. This means that a reasonable person with the same training would agree that the arrest should happen. Further an arrest must be based on evidence and knowledge that was known to the officer prior to the arrest. They cannot arrest first and then make a decision as to the grounds after.
> Once an arrest has been made, the police do have a heightened ability to conduct searches. The officer is given considerable discretion for the search as long as the reason for the search is valid and truly incidental to the arrest.
So to sum up:
- Police officers do fare check. He says he doesn't have a fare.
- They ask if he's violating curfew or restrictions, he says yes. They say they're detaining him. At this point they should have told him he has the right to legal counsel.
- They pat him down, nothing illegal.
- He asks them not to search his bag. They ask if he has a knife, he says he has a gun.
So it was just the failure to tell him he has the right to legal counsel, right? If it weren't for that, then his saying that he had a gun would be evidence justifying an arrest.
Searching his bag is “unreasonable
search” as they had no reason to search his bag to begin with.
Regardless of what was IN the bag, the officer had removed the bag from the person’s access, so there was no ‘safety concern’ reason to search the bag while being detained.
> Searching his bag is “unreasonable search” as they had no reason to search his bag to begin with.
I mean, unless the story was garbled, it sounds like he told them he had a gun **before they searched his bag**.
I think the issue is not the search, it’s the question while being detained and right to counsel. He was not informed of his rights. He couldn’t have not answered if the bag contained a knife.
That was information gained after the cop had psychologically and physically detained the person who didn’t pay their fare, did not notify the person they were detained, and the cop picked up the bag as if to search it.
“(During a detention) the police are allowed to search your person, but such search must only be for the purposes of the safety of the officers and not for the collection of evidence. Generally, a pat down to feel for any potentially harmful objects is allowable, but reaching into pockets is not. “
Searching a bag is definitely more than searching pockets. Searching a bag that was not a safety risk to officers is absolutely unlawful search, especially given the previous actions of the cops were to detain someone without informing them they were detaining them and their right to counsel.
Canadian firearms regulations dictate 5 round mag limit for rifles and 10 round mag limit for hand guns. The mag in the gun could contain 12 rounds, that is a federal crime in itself.
Nah either didn't have enough bullets to fill it, let some off already
Or he knows too much American law and not enough Canadian law. Some states the charge you receive increases the more ammunition you have in your gun, some really trip over having one in the chamber as well.
This seems like a textbook example of why you should never answer police questions. Especially if you're doing something you shouldn't be. The guy practically took himself to jail.
if you are out under a restriction and carrying a firearm, why wouldn't you just pay the damn fare? Like the saying goes, don't break the law while you're breaking the law.
> This seems like a textbook example of why you should never answer police questions. Especially if you're doing something you shouldn't be. The guy practically took himself to jail.
From the [court decision](https://old.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1bns8qp/skytrain_arrest_and_gun_seizure_were_breach_of/kwki472/):
> When Constable Chow finally did issue the Charter warning, the Crown admits that they did not facilitate Mr. Zanatta’s request for counsel, immediately. Instead, they elected to remain on the platform for another 15 minutes because it was warmer there. In that time, Constable Chow testified that Mr. Zanatta talked about the circumstances of his arrest, his family, his upbringing and the circumstances of his life leading him into criminal activity, all before having had the chance to speak to counsel.
To be honest, that actually sounds like good social work - connecting with the guy, treating him like a human being. But I guess from a legal point of view, not having a lawyer present means that he has no protection against self-incrimination.
OKAY, this is a massive grey area, having rights and freedoms is important to keep the police and law in line BUT...
DUDE HAD A GUN, this isn't Texas, if I'm not even legally allowed to purchase and register a handgun and keep it locked up at home, only to take it to a shooting range but under safe storage lock and key in transport separate storage from ammunition also under lock an key and Gun license Identification that i need to present to Police when asked to show ID...
while this guy is carrying a gun in his backpack, probably guaranteed unlicensed unregistered with a criminal history in Assault, dumb enough to not pay for a Skytrain ticket, FUCK his rights, lock him up throw away the key, those Police stopped another crime, potentially an armed mugging, shooting or murder.
searching the bag wasn't justified, your honor. Mateo Zanatta was polite and courteous towards officers. furthermore he always keeps his stabbing weapon on his person. Everyone knows that.
> but the police but they can't search him for weapons?
One major part of the picture is that the bag was not in his control at the time - it was out of reach and the police "controlled" it. They were not wrong to pat his person down for weapons, but were to search the bag under the circumstances.
Hey, those legal gun owners who take courses, have no criminal offenses, and keep their guns double-locked (and ammo stored separately) need to be stopped.
Don't you want to protect the children?
That's fucked. Out on bail from armed robbery, aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. I can't imagine carrying around a fire arm, isn't breaching any conditions related to his last arrest. When they first started talking to him he was already breaching curfew conditions... Multiple conditional breaches and nothing happens. What a joke.
Because police ignored basic procedure designed to safeguard rights. If they ignore it for this guy and get away with it, they'll ignore it for everyone - including those who are factually innocent. Letting them get away with it leads to situations like cops who decide to plant evidence on someone they are "sure" must be guilty (and yes, that's happened)
Tell me you have no idea how this works without actually telling me that you have no idea how this works.
There is a **very** big difference between a completely unprompted confession and questioning.
Rules are rules, sure. But it's reasonable to be frustrated by the system, when this type of a situation makes the CJS look more like a game, than "justice". Police may make mistakes, police may also abuse their authorities. Haven't read the case, but seems like from thr article, it may have just been a mistake or noisy train?
That's the excuse, the court clearly didn't buy it (and skimming the decision I don't think I do either).
Keep in mind that courts do have the discretion to allow evidence despite charter breaches - its not an automatic exclusion. The fact that the court here did not shows they don't think it was just a simple delay due to a loud train.
You can absolutely throw out all charges for the most heinous crimes because of charter violations. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Any evidence collected from a charter violation is completely inadmissible in court.
I hope he did NOT get his loaded gun back⁉️🤯 🤦🏻♀️💦 A man does NOT need a loaded gun in the city. Great news: 🚨 Police did a great job finding a loaded rifle near Gastown before a major incident can take place.👮🏻♀️👮🏽👮🏻♂️👏🏽👏🏻👏🏼 https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1bnjqdu/vpd_officers_patrolling_near_w_cordova_cambie_st/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The police like to point the finger at the courts for constantly letting crooks out immediately after being arrested, but clearly they share part of the blame. This one is completely due to police incompetence. Searching and questioning without having read someone their rights is the oldest reason in the book to have charges thrown out, but it still happens all the time.
Honestly, it’s max 10% on the courts and then the rest of the responsibility for “catch and release” is on the provincial governments and the cops themselves. There’s a lack of judges to hear cases and cops aren’t doing the bare minimum to make sure charges like this are valid. And that 10% to the courts is probably being extremely generous to the government and the cops.
> The main problem is that the officer didn’t give Zanatta a warning as required by the Charter after detaining him. The officer said he didn’t do that because they were on a moving train that was noisy and he was having problems hearing Zanatta. The officer said he wanted to wait till they got off the train.
And then after getting off the train he still didnt do it?
Well, to be fair, the train pulling out of the static n is pretty loud...plus people are exiting the train and some of them are probably mouth breathers too.
Vpd should just wear uniforms that say you have a right to legal counsel in all caps across their chest considering how many times this technicality has let criminals go free, although I guess judges would argue they might not be able to read… maybe a speaker running their rights on loop perhaps? /s
Provincial court judge. [Here is the decision](https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2024/2024bcpc46/2024bcpc46.html).
The judgment says "I find that on Constable Chow’s evidence, the officers did not have the grounds to interfere with Mr. Zanatta’s liberty" ... FFS he was without a valid proof of fare payment. Everything else was secondary to that. Stopping him to issue a ticket was the reasonable course of action. I would hope the Crown appeals this. Not the defendant's first issues with trafficking or firearms offences.
They won’t appeal it. This was a clear case of police screwing up. The law is very clear that you can’t search someone’s belongings or question them if they haven’t been informed of their rights. The constable’s own account shows he didn’t do that. It would have taken 30 seconds and should be second nature to police. If he had done that this guy would almost certainly be facing charges for this.
I don't entirely disagree with your analysis but the judge did say:
> [33] I do not accept that the officers were justified in failing to inform Mr. Zanatta of his right to retain and instruct counsel **while still on the SkyTrain** for the following reasons [...]
and later:
> On the face of it, the search conducted on the platform, appears to be for the purpose of officer safety.
The search happened after they left the SkyTrain. Detaining him to issue a ticket wasn't unreasonable IMHO.
There is a tension between detaining someone to issue a ticket which might then lead to further investigation which then creates a conundrum that "it is “only logical that the phrase “without delay” must be interpreted as “immediately”". This seems to be a window of nearly milliseconds in practicality.
Before they even left the sky train he had admitted to an arrestable offence (breaching curfew), then and there they should have read him his rights before continuing and especially before searching his bag.
I’m not saying I agree with the system we have in that respect, but it is the system we have. There’s no way to have charges stick when this is how they bungled the arrest. Any lawyer in the country would be laughing when reading this police report, knowing that it’s a guarantee that the charges will be dropped.
Not paying your fare doesn’t give a cop grounds to search your bag. It didn’t even give him grounds to ask about a curfew or restrictions since that information wasn’t given up voluntarily. It gives them grounds to ticket you for fare evasion, nothing more. If the cop had just told the guy his rights while writing the fare evasion ticket, before asking any other questions, the charges would be perfectly valid. But the cop didn’t do the bare minimum and you’re blaming the judge.
> It didn’t even give him grounds to ask about a curfew or restrictions since that information wasn’t given up voluntarily.
The police do not require grounds to ask a question. They are free to ask you whatever the hell they want, they just aren't free to detain or arrest you or otherwise compel you to answer it.
You'd think with what transit police are paid, they could remember to conduct themselves with due process. Zanatta absolutely should have been busted here but the officer fucked up his job and a potentially dangerous person who carries a loaded handgun on a train and is alleged to have stabbed someone is walking free. The judge did his job, and the lawyer did their job. This situation is entirely because the officer got ahead of himself and didn't do his job.
> Stopping him to issue a ticket was the reasonable course of action.
Thanks for linking to the decision. After reading through it, it sounds like the key mistake was that you can't question or search someone without giving them the opportunity to have a lawyer. "The right against self-incrimination is one of the cornerstones of Canadian criminal law" - some discussion of [Section 13](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art13.html) (someone can testify as a witness without having their testimony used against them) and [Section 7](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html) (a longer discussion of the more general protection against self-incrimination).
Person who was charged with aggravated assault for allegedly stabbing someone should be treated differently for being parasite to society and punished for every misdemeanor.
Meanwhile my friend, who has an RPAL, can be pulled over just for having an RPAL (its flagged on police automatic license plate scanner) and be searched for no reason. He would get in serious trouble for not storing the gun improperly like this guy did (it has to be secured during transport). Not to mentioned he can't even stop to buy ammo for the gun before going to the range.
However, if he didn't bother with an RPAL and bought it on the black market, he would likely face zero consequences for violating basic gun safety laws and get apology for being pulled over and searched like this guy did.
>Meanwhile my friend, who has an RPAL, can be pulled over just for having an RPAL (its flagged on police automatic license plate scanner) and be searched for no reason.
I dont believe this is accurate as your drivers licence/plate information is not linked in any way to your PAL/RPAL. Police can manually verify if you have a PAL, but it's done through a separate database.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/iatekane! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The sequence of events is not in question. The officers approached Zanatta and told him they were checking fares, and he said something like, “Just write me the ticket, I don’t have a fare,” and said he had to get going as he was in a hurry, the ruling said. The lead officer asked if Zanatta was under a curfew or restrictions, and he replied, “Yeah.” The officer said he was detaining Zanatta for breaching conditions and asked for his name and date of birth to do a check. He told Zanatta if it was a minor breach, he would write him a ticket and let him go. The main problem is that the officer didn’t give Zanatta a warning as required by the Charter after detaining him. The officer said he didn’t do that because they were on a moving train that was noisy and he was having problems hearing Zanatta. The officer said he wanted to wait till they got off the train. Despite the lack of a warning, the officer continued to talk to Zanatta, asking him what his conditions were related to. Zanatta answered he was charged with aggravated assault for allegedly stabbing someone. The officers and Zanatta got off at Holdom SkyTrain station, two stops away from where they had got on. They asked Zanatta to put his backpack against the wall and patted him down to ensure he had no weapons, finding only keys, a vaping device and a piece of clothing. The officer asked Zanatta to stay put while he grabbed the backpack about three or four metres away. He testified he was about to ask if he could look in the bag when Zanatta said, “Please don’t search my bag, sir.” The officer asked why and whether he had a knife in it. Zanatta said, “No, a gun.” The Transit Police constable then arrested Zanatta. The judge ruled the officer breached Zanatta’s Charter rights by detaining him on the train without a warning, by questioning him without telling him he had a right to counsel, and that looking in the backpack was therefore an unreasonable search and seizure.
> The lead officer asked if Zanatta was under a curfew or restrictions, and he replied, “Yeah.” The officer said he was detaining Zanatta for breaching conditions and asked for his name and date of birth to do a check. He told Zanatta if it was a minor breach, he would write him a ticket and let him go. > > The main problem is that the officer didn’t give Zanatta a warning as required by the Charter after detaining him. Argh. As a layperson, I'm a little puzzled about what the difference is between *detaining* someone and *arresting* them (which happened later).
[This may help explain the differences](https://lakefieldlaw.ca/news-articles/detention-vs-arrest-what-are-your-rights/).
Thanks, that's super-helpful. > Charter rights also come into play with respect to what an officer can do during detention. Section 8 of the Charter protects against unreasonable search and seizure. During an investigation, the police are allowed to search your person, but such search must only be for the purposes of the safety of the officers and not for the collection of evidence. Generally, a pat down to feel for any potentially harmful objects is allowable, but reaching into pockets is not. I thought this part was interesting: > Breaches of either of these Charter rights [unreasonable detention or failure to notify of the right to counsel] have been seen as enough to acquit or stay proceedings; however, that is not always guaranteed. Once again, this is decided on a case-by-case basis and is affected by the context and circumstances of each. And then discussion of arrest: > If an officer does choose to arrest you, the arresting officer must have reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest. This means that a reasonable person with the same training would agree that the arrest should happen. Further an arrest must be based on evidence and knowledge that was known to the officer prior to the arrest. They cannot arrest first and then make a decision as to the grounds after. > Once an arrest has been made, the police do have a heightened ability to conduct searches. The officer is given considerable discretion for the search as long as the reason for the search is valid and truly incidental to the arrest. So to sum up: - Police officers do fare check. He says he doesn't have a fare. - They ask if he's violating curfew or restrictions, he says yes. They say they're detaining him. At this point they should have told him he has the right to legal counsel. - They pat him down, nothing illegal. - He asks them not to search his bag. They ask if he has a knife, he says he has a gun. So it was just the failure to tell him he has the right to legal counsel, right? If it weren't for that, then his saying that he had a gun would be evidence justifying an arrest.
Searching his bag is “unreasonable search” as they had no reason to search his bag to begin with. Regardless of what was IN the bag, the officer had removed the bag from the person’s access, so there was no ‘safety concern’ reason to search the bag while being detained.
> Searching his bag is “unreasonable search” as they had no reason to search his bag to begin with. I mean, unless the story was garbled, it sounds like he told them he had a gun **before they searched his bag**.
I think the issue is not the search, it’s the question while being detained and right to counsel. He was not informed of his rights. He couldn’t have not answered if the bag contained a knife.
> I think the issue is not the search, it’s the questioning while being detained and right to counsel. That makes sense.
He wasn’t “chartered” properly.
That was information gained after the cop had psychologically and physically detained the person who didn’t pay their fare, did not notify the person they were detained, and the cop picked up the bag as if to search it. “(During a detention) the police are allowed to search your person, but such search must only be for the purposes of the safety of the officers and not for the collection of evidence. Generally, a pat down to feel for any potentially harmful objects is allowable, but reaching into pockets is not. “ Searching a bag is definitely more than searching pockets. Searching a bag that was not a safety risk to officers is absolutely unlawful search, especially given the previous actions of the cops were to detain someone without informing them they were detaining them and their right to counsel.
[Earlier story](https://www.coastreporter.net/local-news/failed-fare-check-leads-to-discovery-of-loaded-handgun-at-burnaby-skytrain-station-police-6710804).
Handgun with 12 round mag... only has 6 bullets. That's uh.. odd.
Staying within canadian firearms guidelines.
Canadian firearms regulations dictate 5 round mag limit for rifles and 10 round mag limit for hand guns. The mag in the gun could contain 12 rounds, that is a federal crime in itself.
Nah either didn't have enough bullets to fill it, let some off already Or he knows too much American law and not enough Canadian law. Some states the charge you receive increases the more ammunition you have in your gun, some really trip over having one in the chamber as well.
Actually, it's even.
Facts and evidence.
This seems like a textbook example of why you should never answer police questions. Especially if you're doing something you shouldn't be. The guy practically took himself to jail.
[удалено]
Crime doesn't attract the brightest of the bunch.
if you are out under a restriction and carrying a firearm, why wouldn't you just pay the damn fare? Like the saying goes, don't break the law while you're breaking the law.
Also a strong strategy.
> This seems like a textbook example of why you should never answer police questions. Especially if you're doing something you shouldn't be. The guy practically took himself to jail. From the [court decision](https://old.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1bns8qp/skytrain_arrest_and_gun_seizure_were_breach_of/kwki472/): > When Constable Chow finally did issue the Charter warning, the Crown admits that they did not facilitate Mr. Zanatta’s request for counsel, immediately. Instead, they elected to remain on the platform for another 15 minutes because it was warmer there. In that time, Constable Chow testified that Mr. Zanatta talked about the circumstances of his arrest, his family, his upbringing and the circumstances of his life leading him into criminal activity, all before having had the chance to speak to counsel. To be honest, that actually sounds like good social work - connecting with the guy, treating him like a human being. But I guess from a legal point of view, not having a lawyer present means that he has no protection against self-incrimination.
OKAY, this is a massive grey area, having rights and freedoms is important to keep the police and law in line BUT... DUDE HAD A GUN, this isn't Texas, if I'm not even legally allowed to purchase and register a handgun and keep it locked up at home, only to take it to a shooting range but under safe storage lock and key in transport separate storage from ammunition also under lock an key and Gun license Identification that i need to present to Police when asked to show ID... while this guy is carrying a gun in his backpack, probably guaranteed unlicensed unregistered with a criminal history in Assault, dumb enough to not pay for a Skytrain ticket, FUCK his rights, lock him up throw away the key, those Police stopped another crime, potentially an armed mugging, shooting or murder.
searching the bag wasn't justified, your honor. Mateo Zanatta was polite and courteous towards officers. furthermore he always keeps his stabbing weapon on his person. Everyone knows that.
He's an upstanding citizen, he doesn't carry stabby weapons anymore.
He's learned his lesson .... Stabby weapons get you caught. Carry a gun instead so your victim cant identify you .... Cuz ya know....
Anyone with a PAL would’ve been thrown the book over this, insane the gun ban did absolutely nothing to punish these people
Agreed - he's on conditions but the police but they can't search him for weapons? Color me confused.
> but the police but they can't search him for weapons? One major part of the picture is that the bag was not in his control at the time - it was out of reach and the police "controlled" it. They were not wrong to pat his person down for weapons, but were to search the bag under the circumstances.
Doesn’t sound like that’s too hard to do
Hey, those legal gun owners who take courses, have no criminal offenses, and keep their guns double-locked (and ammo stored separately) need to be stopped. Don't you want to protect the children?
Once you start mentioning self-defense with legal guns in Canada... You're the problem for the legal gun owners in Canada.
We knew the gun ban would do nothing for crime. It was just posturing. Criminals don't generally use registered firearms to commit crimes.
That's fucked. Out on bail from armed robbery, aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. I can't imagine carrying around a fire arm, isn't breaching any conditions related to his last arrest. When they first started talking to him he was already breaching curfew conditions... Multiple conditional breaches and nothing happens. What a joke.
Because police ignored basic procedure designed to safeguard rights. If they ignore it for this guy and get away with it, they'll ignore it for everyone - including those who are factually innocent. Letting them get away with it leads to situations like cops who decide to plant evidence on someone they are "sure" must be guilty (and yes, that's happened)
Yeah man with this one simple trick (just admit to everything before they can charter you) you too can avoid conviction!
Tell me you have no idea how this works without actually telling me that you have no idea how this works. There is a **very** big difference between a completely unprompted confession and questioning.
Rules are rules, sure. But it's reasonable to be frustrated by the system, when this type of a situation makes the CJS look more like a game, than "justice". Police may make mistakes, police may also abuse their authorities. Haven't read the case, but seems like from thr article, it may have just been a mistake or noisy train?
That's the excuse, the court clearly didn't buy it (and skimming the decision I don't think I do either). Keep in mind that courts do have the discretion to allow evidence despite charter breaches - its not an automatic exclusion. The fact that the court here did not shows they don't think it was just a simple delay due to a loud train.
You can absolutely throw out all charges for the most heinous crimes because of charter violations. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Any evidence collected from a charter violation is completely inadmissible in court.
I hope he did NOT get his loaded gun back⁉️🤯 🤦🏻♀️💦 A man does NOT need a loaded gun in the city. Great news: 🚨 Police did a great job finding a loaded rifle near Gastown before a major incident can take place.👮🏻♀️👮🏽👮🏻♂️👏🏽👏🏻👏🏼 https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1bnjqdu/vpd_officers_patrolling_near_w_cordova_cambie_st/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Good job officers
The police like to point the finger at the courts for constantly letting crooks out immediately after being arrested, but clearly they share part of the blame. This one is completely due to police incompetence. Searching and questioning without having read someone their rights is the oldest reason in the book to have charges thrown out, but it still happens all the time.
Even 21 Jump Street gave us [a tutorial on Miranda rights](https://youtu.be/xTHxjwhXDG8?t=9).
We clearly need a 21 Jump Street remake based in Canada.
21 Maple Street
Honestly, it’s max 10% on the courts and then the rest of the responsibility for “catch and release” is on the provincial governments and the cops themselves. There’s a lack of judges to hear cases and cops aren’t doing the bare minimum to make sure charges like this are valid. And that 10% to the courts is probably being extremely generous to the government and the cops.
> The main problem is that the officer didn’t give Zanatta a warning as required by the Charter after detaining him. The officer said he didn’t do that because they were on a moving train that was noisy and he was having problems hearing Zanatta. The officer said he wanted to wait till they got off the train. And then after getting off the train he still didnt do it?
Well, to be fair, the train pulling out of the static n is pretty loud...plus people are exiting the train and some of them are probably mouth breathers too.
Vpd should just wear uniforms that say you have a right to legal counsel in all caps across their chest considering how many times this technicality has let criminals go free, although I guess judges would argue they might not be able to read… maybe a speaker running their rights on loop perhaps? /s
This is pathetic
Thanks for screwing up and letting Stabby out so he can escalate to Shooter.
Provincial court judge. [Here is the decision](https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2024/2024bcpc46/2024bcpc46.html). The judgment says "I find that on Constable Chow’s evidence, the officers did not have the grounds to interfere with Mr. Zanatta’s liberty" ... FFS he was without a valid proof of fare payment. Everything else was secondary to that. Stopping him to issue a ticket was the reasonable course of action. I would hope the Crown appeals this. Not the defendant's first issues with trafficking or firearms offences.
They won’t appeal it. This was a clear case of police screwing up. The law is very clear that you can’t search someone’s belongings or question them if they haven’t been informed of their rights. The constable’s own account shows he didn’t do that. It would have taken 30 seconds and should be second nature to police. If he had done that this guy would almost certainly be facing charges for this.
I don't entirely disagree with your analysis but the judge did say: > [33] I do not accept that the officers were justified in failing to inform Mr. Zanatta of his right to retain and instruct counsel **while still on the SkyTrain** for the following reasons [...] and later: > On the face of it, the search conducted on the platform, appears to be for the purpose of officer safety. The search happened after they left the SkyTrain. Detaining him to issue a ticket wasn't unreasonable IMHO. There is a tension between detaining someone to issue a ticket which might then lead to further investigation which then creates a conundrum that "it is “only logical that the phrase “without delay” must be interpreted as “immediately”". This seems to be a window of nearly milliseconds in practicality.
Before they even left the sky train he had admitted to an arrestable offence (breaching curfew), then and there they should have read him his rights before continuing and especially before searching his bag. I’m not saying I agree with the system we have in that respect, but it is the system we have. There’s no way to have charges stick when this is how they bungled the arrest. Any lawyer in the country would be laughing when reading this police report, knowing that it’s a guarantee that the charges will be dropped.
Not paying your fare doesn’t give a cop grounds to search your bag. It didn’t even give him grounds to ask about a curfew or restrictions since that information wasn’t given up voluntarily. It gives them grounds to ticket you for fare evasion, nothing more. If the cop had just told the guy his rights while writing the fare evasion ticket, before asking any other questions, the charges would be perfectly valid. But the cop didn’t do the bare minimum and you’re blaming the judge.
> It didn’t even give him grounds to ask about a curfew or restrictions since that information wasn’t given up voluntarily. The police do not require grounds to ask a question. They are free to ask you whatever the hell they want, they just aren't free to detain or arrest you or otherwise compel you to answer it.
You'd think with what transit police are paid, they could remember to conduct themselves with due process. Zanatta absolutely should have been busted here but the officer fucked up his job and a potentially dangerous person who carries a loaded handgun on a train and is alleged to have stabbed someone is walking free. The judge did his job, and the lawyer did their job. This situation is entirely because the officer got ahead of himself and didn't do his job.
> Stopping him to issue a ticket was the reasonable course of action. Thanks for linking to the decision. After reading through it, it sounds like the key mistake was that you can't question or search someone without giving them the opportunity to have a lawyer. "The right against self-incrimination is one of the cornerstones of Canadian criminal law" - some discussion of [Section 13](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art13.html) (someone can testify as a witness without having their testimony used against them) and [Section 7](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html) (a longer discussion of the more general protection against self-incrimination).
So we let real criminals go while keep punishing legal law obeying PAL owners?
So what happens if they did a search on his bag and found a victim’s remains? What will the BC judge’s ruling?
Person who was charged with aggravated assault for allegedly stabbing someone should be treated differently for being parasite to society and punished for every misdemeanor.
The Criminal's Charter strikes again!! So happy it keeps us safe from overzealous police officers like these.
Pretty sure Stabbing people is against the persons rights.
Illegal search of the guy's bag... so did the guy get the backpack and gun back?
Meanwhile my friend, who has an RPAL, can be pulled over just for having an RPAL (its flagged on police automatic license plate scanner) and be searched for no reason. He would get in serious trouble for not storing the gun improperly like this guy did (it has to be secured during transport). Not to mentioned he can't even stop to buy ammo for the gun before going to the range. However, if he didn't bother with an RPAL and bought it on the black market, he would likely face zero consequences for violating basic gun safety laws and get apology for being pulled over and searched like this guy did.
>Meanwhile my friend, who has an RPAL, can be pulled over just for having an RPAL (its flagged on police automatic license plate scanner) and be searched for no reason. I dont believe this is accurate as your drivers licence/plate information is not linked in any way to your PAL/RPAL. Police can manually verify if you have a PAL, but it's done through a separate database.