Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:45 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
A technicality is mispelling his name or a date. What the officer did was an infringement of his rights and not legal. If it were legal, it wouldn’t of been thrown out of court. The end.
The stop and subsequent search being declared illegal, is a technicality. But that doesn't change the fact that he committed a violation.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:48 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The stop and subsequent search being declared illegal, is an infringement of human rights. But that doesn't change the fact that he committed a violation.
Fixed it for you. I agree.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:50 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

Elk this is similar to High river on a less grand scale. Remember siding with the citizens there?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:57 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
Elk this is similar to High river on a less grand scale. Remember siding with the citizens there?
The citizens in High River weren't poachers, they were the innocent victims of a flood. The OP here admitted to not tagging an animal, which is a violation.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-19-2018, 08:01 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The citizens in High River weren't poachers, they were the innocent victims of a flood. The OP here admitted to not tagging an animal, which is a violation.
Once again, this thread is not about poaching. It’s about unwarranted enforcement stops. What is your take on them elk?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-19-2018, 08:10 PM
Don_Parsons Don_Parsons is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
Op said he was fine with the hunting charges. What he was not fine with was being pulled over illegally. Learn to read.
My apologies TM, I should of read the OP's post better since he did say that he was "willing" to pay hundreds of thousands for the fine,,, I didn't realize that "willing to" and did mean the same thing since it must be a typo like to regulations on page 41.

Kind of a crappy deal that he paid for the fines only to find out later that he could of had the charges stay-ed "since the illegal stop by the CO" would mean that the charges wouldn't stand.

My bad for not following along since "willing" to pay ment he did get fined and also beat won the case of being pulled over illegally.

It's to bad that he didn't say "he did pay the fine instead of willing."
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-19-2018, 08:18 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
Once again, this thread is not about poaching. It’s about unwarranted enforcement stops. What is your take on them elk?
I am against unwarranted stops, but I won't celebrate when a poacher gets away with a violation due to a technicality, any more than I would celebrate a thief , or an impaired driver going free on a technicality. And I seriously doubt that the OP hired a lawyer to defend all hunters rights, more like his intent was to avoid he himself being prosecuted .
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.

Last edited by elkhunter11; 09-19-2018 at 08:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-19-2018, 08:22 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
I am against unwarranted stops, but I won't celebrate when a poacher gets away with a violation due to a technicality, any more than I would celebrate a thief , or an impaired driver going free on a technicality.
Nobody is “celebrating “ poaching. The celebration is for enforcement officers being knocked off the pedestal in regards to illegal stops.

Last edited by Talking moose; 09-19-2018 at 08:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-19-2018, 08:47 PM
kingrat kingrat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: prince albert
Posts: 1,838
Default

So a co is actually out patrolling, pulls a couple guys over and catches them poaching (untagged deer) and some of you are happy they lost the case on a technicality.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-19-2018, 08:50 PM
RACKER RACKER is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 864
Default

Would there be any meat to this thread if he tagged the deer?I can dam well guarantee he would not have anything to write about if getting "stopped unlawfully" if he did everything by the book.The only defense on beating the charges were to find a glitch in the hundreds of pages of fine print.I have been stopped alot the last few seasons and I am more than happy to see them.The department is seriously undermanned and the officers have a tough time to keep up.To everyone thats complaining about them try spending a hunting season with them.And yes they have bad days just like all of us when they could be a little less aggravating but thats human nature.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-19-2018, 09:04 PM
MathewsArcher MathewsArcher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary,Alberta
Posts: 1,058
Default

Hope the Crown appeals.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-19-2018, 10:09 PM
mickeyjim mickeyjim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 254
Default

This dude isn't a poacher. Glad you got off. That's a very steep fine and suspension

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-19-2018, 10:16 PM
bucksman bucksman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeyjim View Post
This dude isn't a poacher. Glad you got off. That's a very steep fine and suspension

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk


He got a fine and suspension?
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-20-2018, 01:25 AM
roughneckin roughneckin is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,045
Default

You guys are a riot.

I hear all the time here....“If there was just more enforcement then none of this would happen and areas wouldn’t get shut down or whatever wouldnt happen” but you want the enforcement handcuffed with silly things. This guy would’ve never fought anything just like you or I would if he had tagged it right off the hop. Like most of us do every time out. I’ve been randomly stopped lots and was never worried, been through checkstops and never worried, told police I had guns in the truck and never worried cause I know I’m lawful.

Mistakes are made every day by all of us but this one caught the OP big time and he got off but if he had tagged the deer right he never would’ve even had to waste the money. Anyone else ever fought an unlawful stop if the authorities never found anything and let them off.....probably not. Anyone want to admit when they are caught doing something wrong they have never plead innocence even though they were trying to get off on it?? I know I can admit I did as a kid. I deserved every likken.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-20-2018, 06:06 AM
Don_Parsons Don_Parsons is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bucksman View Post
He got a fine and suspension?
Strange that people claim hill 60 Kid paid a fine, purhaps it might be wise to read the pages for. the Provincial Court records.

Here is a statement from Hill 60 Kid him self regarding the matter that is open public knowledge.

Thanks Greg for believing in me and going the extra step.
I wanted to take this chance to provide Mr. Dunn with my thanks for excepting my case and for the time he took in defence of my two Wildlife Act Offences. As an officer I never imagined being charged with two offences under the Wildlife Act. Clearly there were hidden agendas and I was put on the ropes by another enforcement agency. They were out to make a statement and I was alone and told to seek legal counsel. I researched and talked to family members that have lived in Alberta their whole lives and was told that Dunn & Associates were the best and most experienced in Wildlife Act offences and would fight the hardest for me. On my family's advice I contacted and retained Greg Dunn's services with Dunn & Associates regarding my case.

I was not an easy client and had a TON of questions and concerns to the point of distraction, but Greg stayed focused and kept my emotional state in mind and stayed positive and thankfully was able to sort out only the facts that he could defend in Criminal Court.

After 2 years my case was finally heard in a Criminal Court where, Mr. Dunn and I faced a Provincial Criminal Prosecutor, 5 officers, two of which were supervisors, and three field officers that were all lined up against me. Thinking about it, that was a lot of officers taken out of service and had to travel with costs from all over the Province for an honest mistake! No one else in the court room was on my side as they were the only ones there in the court room which, was a very scary and lonely feeling. Mr. Dunn. was the only one on my side and that proved to be all I needed in the end. I truly thought I was being made an example of for a completely honest mistake, I was extremely scared for my career as you can imagine.

Mr. Dunn was unbelievable, and questioned the officers to the point where the truth finally came out and they finally admitted their mistakes; I was hence acquitted of both charges, unconditionally. I WOULD not want to be on the stand with Mr. Dunn questioning me.

Thanks Greg for believing in me and going the extra step!!!

P.S. You will not hear from me again I can assure you!

B.A.


Purhaps the issue is that "willing to and did pay a fine are not the same."
Both chargers were dropped.

I'm sure that others will post a link to the trial from the CAN LII site regarding the case.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-20-2018, 06:09 AM
58thecat's Avatar
58thecat 58thecat is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: At the end of the Thirsty Beaver Trail, Pinsky lake, Alberta.
Posts: 24,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
A technicality is mispelling his name or a date. What the officer did was an infringement of his rights and not legal. If it were legal, it wouldn’t of been thrown out of court. The end.
Wo wo wo you can't call the end.....spot check during hunting season is a good thing, potentially caught someone who was going to use the tag the next day....just saying....we don't really know the intention....oops officer I forgot...probably hears that a thousand times a season....

Any CO's out there keep it up, spot checks etc, put the pressure on the criminals and keeps us all in line too
__________________

Be careful when you follow the masses, sometimes the "M" is silent...
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-20-2018, 06:21 AM
brendan's dad's Avatar
brendan's dad brendan's dad is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton Area
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don_Parsons View Post
Strange that people claim hill 60 Kid paid a fine, purhaps it might be wise to read the pages for. the Provincial Court records.

Here is a statement from Hill 60 Kid him self regarding the matter that is open public knowledge.

Thanks Greg for believing in me and going the extra step.
I wanted to take this chance to provide Mr. Dunn with my thanks for excepting my case and for the time he took in defence of my two Wildlife Act Offences. As an officer I never imagined being charged with two offences under the Wildlife Act. Clearly there were hidden agendas and I was put on the ropes by another enforcement agency. They were out to make a statement and I was alone and told to seek legal counsel. I researched and talked to family members that have lived in Alberta their whole lives and was told that Dunn & Associates were the best and most experienced in Wildlife Act offences and would fight the hardest for me. On my family's advice I contacted and retained Greg Dunn's services with Dunn & Associates regarding my case.

I was not an easy client and had a TON of questions and concerns to the point of distraction, but Greg stayed focused and kept my emotional state in mind and stayed positive and thankfully was able to sort out only the facts that he could defend in Criminal Court.

After 2 years my case was finally heard in a Criminal Court where, Mr. Dunn and I faced a Provincial Criminal Prosecutor, 5 officers, two of which were supervisors, and three field officers that were all lined up against me. Thinking about it, that was a lot of officers taken out of service and had to travel with costs from all over the Province for an honest mistake! No one else in the court room was on my side as they were the only ones there in the court room which, was a very scary and lonely feeling. Mr. Dunn. was the only one on my side and that proved to be all I needed in the end. I truly thought I was being made an example of for a completely honest mistake, I was extremely scared for my career as you can imagine.

Mr. Dunn was unbelievable, and questioned the officers to the point where the truth finally came out and they finally admitted their mistakes; I was hence acquitted of both charges, unconditionally. I WOULD not want to be on the stand with Mr. Dunn questioning me.

Thanks Greg for believing in me and going the extra step!!!

P.S. You will not hear from me again I can assure you!

B.A.


Purhaps the issue is that "willing to and did pay a fine are not the same."
Both chargers were dropped.

I'm sure that others will post a link to the trial from the CAN LII site regarding the case.
That's a curve a ball...... I wonder what agency he works for. You guys still want to give this guy a pass and a pat on the back knowing he is an "Officer" who is most likely sworn to enforce legislation

So most here are ok with...."once I have the animal under my tonneau cover I am home free." CO's do not enforce the traffic safety act, so do you think that they should only be able to stop a vehicle if they personally observe an offence?

There is a lot of "I want more enforcement as long as it isn't directed towards me." in this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-20-2018, 06:49 AM
IR_mike IR_mike is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iron River
Posts: 5,158
Default

Interesting twist on page 3.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:52 AM
Joe Black Joe Black is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brendan's dad View Post
That's a curve a ball...... I wonder what agency he works for. You guys still want to give this guy a pass and a pat on the back knowing he is an "Officer" who is most likely sworn to enforce legislation

So most here are ok with...."once I have the animal under my tonneau cover I am home free." CO's do not enforce the traffic safety act, so do you think that they should only be able to stop a vehicle if they personally observe an offence?

There is a lot of "I want more enforcement as long as it isn't directed towards me." in this thread.
The FACT that they, or a cop, can only pull over a vehicle if they see an offence IS THE LAW, so yes they should follow the law, just like the rest of us.

Not sure where your rationell is coming from. Let certain parts of our society be above the law? Then why not let a hunter who breaks the law be above it?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-20-2018, 08:04 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Black View Post
The FACT that they, or a cop, can only pull over a vehicle if they see an offence IS THE LAW, so yes they should follow the law, just like the rest of us.

Not sure where your rationell is coming from. Let certain parts of our society be above the law? Then why not let a hunter who breaks the law be above it?
If that is true, then all stop checks by F&W, and the police should cease immediately.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 09-20-2018, 08:34 AM
DJS DJS is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 689
Default

Again, this is another thread that really surprises the hell out of me. Mistake or not (I'll keep my opinion on that to myself) the law was broken. There has been a lot of talk on this very forum about how poaching seems to be on the rise and we really hope individuals breaking the laws in place are caught and prosecuted. But how are poachers to be caught if COs cannot make random stops? Is it really an infringement or a bother if your stopped randomly? Perhaps if you have something to hide I can see the issue some would have with that. COs, much like RCMP or any other law enforcement agency have extremely hard jobs. Crime levels everywhere are on the rise so the fact that some are out there randomly stopping and checking vehicles makes me happy. The fact that the original poster was stopped and found in non compliance with the laws in place makes me even happier. To find out that he eventually got off on a technicality makes me sick. It makes me sick because we see this stuff all the time. Our justice system in this country is a joke.

And for all of those who are here praising the original poster for "owning up to" or "admitting to his mistake" ...what a laugh. If he really was doing that he'd have paid his fine and lived with the consequences to his actions.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-20-2018, 08:40 AM
shootermcgavin's Avatar
shootermcgavin shootermcgavin is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 457
Default

He is some sort of "officer" who has learned that he is above the law. Had another dealing with an "officer" who was above the law...

If the judge wasn't a greasy lawyer, they would have both been charged.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-20-2018, 08:50 AM
leeelmer leeelmer is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rocky Mnt House
Posts: 932
Default

The officers knew that randomly stopping any vehicle is against the law.
They are looking once pulled over to get there reasonable cause. Such as seeing blood, or asking and the person admitting that they are hunting.
The only reasonable cause they have is if they see a dead animal in the back of the truck, then they have reasonable cause to pull you over, if lets say, they got a report of poachers in the area.
There is not reasonable cause, just because there is a dead creature.
This is the point most people fail to realize, no enforcement officer can just pull you over for the fun of it. It has happened for so long people are just used to it.
Cops cant just randomly pull you over either, they must have reasonable suspicion of a crime or misdemeanor to pull you over.
So while I agree with the OP that the stop was illegal, and such all evidence collected is fruit of a poisoned tree.
Though I don't agree with getting away with anything, but that is our justice system, and if we did not have it, then nothing would stop the RCMP from randomly entering all our homes whenever they want just to check and see if something is a miss, and I would guess everyone on this forum would have a problem with the RCMP entering your home anytime they want to see if you are doing, or have been doing is illegal.
So the officer in this case did something wrong, and the OP got away with doing something Illegal(even though a mistake) still illegal and got away with it. Because the officer did not follow the law. He could have followed the man home, then watched him unload the game, then made his arrest.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-20-2018, 08:58 AM
bobtodrick bobtodrick is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brendan's dad View Post
There is a lot of "I want more enforcement as long as it isn't directed towards me." in this thread.
Bingo!!
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:04 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeelmer View Post
The officers knew that randomly stopping any vehicle is against the law.
They are looking once pulled over to get there reasonable cause. Such as seeing blood, or asking and the person admitting that they are hunting.
The only reasonable cause they have is if they see a dead animal in the back of the truck, then they have reasonable cause to pull you over, if lets say, they got a report of poachers in the area.
There is not reasonable cause, just because there is a dead creature.
This is the point most people fail to realize, no enforcement officer can just pull you over for the fun of it. It has happened for so long people are just used to it.
Cops cant just randomly pull you over either, they must have reasonable suspicion of a crime or misdemeanor to pull you over.
So while I agree with the OP that the stop was illegal, and such all evidence collected is fruit of a poisoned tree.
Though I don't agree with getting away with anything, but that is our justice system, and if we did not have it, then nothing would stop the RCMP from randomly entering all our homes whenever they want just to check and see if something is a miss, and I would guess everyone on this forum would have a problem with the RCMP entering your home anytime they want to see if you are doing, or have been doing is illegal.
So the officer in this case did something wrong, and the OP got away with doing something Illegal(even though a mistake) still illegal and got away with it. Because the officer did not follow the law. He could have followed the man home, then watched him unload the game, then made his arrest.
So where does this leave the check stops, where the police and F&W pull over hundreds of vehicles with no probable cause? Come New Years eve, are we going to see no more check stops?
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:17 AM
hal53's Avatar
hal53 hal53 is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lougheed,Ab.
Posts: 12,736
Default

Some peoples replies on this thread make me wonder why more people don't take the CO's to court when they are stopped and checked and everything is alright.. why wouldn't you go after the officer for illegally pulling you over?
__________________
The future ain't what it used to be - Yogi Berra
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:27 AM
silver lab's Avatar
silver lab silver lab is online now
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Stuck between wmu 110, 302 & 305
Posts: 1,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hal53 View Post
Some peoples replies on this thread make me wonder why more people don't take the CO's to court when they are stopped and checked and everything is alright.. why wouldn't you go after the officer for illegally pulling you over?
Hey, this just may lead to some interesting court cases. I thought they had every right to just randomly pull me over and look to see if my gun was unloaded. In fact down south I get pull over and searched on a regular basis. I follow the law and have never been charged with anything.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:32 AM
Big Sky's Avatar
Big Sky Big Sky is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hal53 View Post
Some peoples replies on this thread make me wonder why more people don't take the CO's to court when they are stopped and checked and everything is alright.. why wouldn't you go after the officer for illegally pulling you over?
I would assume it's because it takes a lot of time and money to take law enforcement to court. Most folks have neither so they just accept the 'bent over' feeling.

Civil liberties groups will often take up a cause such as 'carding'. IIRC this was recently done in Ontario. I don't think that any civil liberties group gives a rat's *ss about hunters.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:33 AM
Joe Black Joe Black is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
So where does this leave the check stops, where the police and F&W pull over hundreds of vehicles with no probable cause? Come New Years eve, are we going to see no more check stops?

different situation. check stops do not target an individual. all individuals are treated the same(they all get checked). that is the difference. there is an allowance in the law that check stops do not require the reasonable cause as all are treated the same. someone who knows the exact reason can chime in.

so yes, set up a check stop, stop all vehicles, fill your boots. i have no problem with that as it is allowed under the law.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:37 AM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
So where does this leave the check stops, where the police and F&W pull over hundreds of vehicles with no probable cause? Come New Years eve, are we going to see no more check stops?
This is not something new. Check Stops are perfectly legal because they apply to everyone. Random stops signal out individuals for unconstitutional harassment. It is wrong in every way to harass someone because of how they look or where they are when acting in a law abiding manner.

Everyone speeds a little bit at times EXCEPT apparently drug smugglers etc. A savvy trooper noted this trend and started checking vehicles of those travelling at or below the speed limit. His arrest records were off the charts but convictions not so much.

The OP did absolutely nothing wrong as in a free and democratic society you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO ands, ifs or buts, nor crackers and nuts INNOCENT!

Those of you willing to open this can of worms, that should never have been allowed to go on this long, should well consider the law in general and the spirit of the law as intended.

How many of you can say there was never a time that you were not in violation of the safe storage laws. Gun soaking in wipe out while you are upstairs for a sandwich, oops, forgot and ran to the store to get bread???

Our constitutional rights are much more important than a tagging violation or even a murder conviction. It's what separates us from the commies.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
hunter, lawyer, legal, rights

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.