Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)

[mariomike]

The cops here in Winnipeg were soundly denounced for obtaining a search warrant to search - get this - a homeless camp.

Saw that on an ( American ) TV show.

After a homeless man was convicted of murder, his lawyer filed a Fourth Amendment appeal claiming an illegal, unwarranted search of his personal property.

His tent was considered to be his home, with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The key factor seemed to be he did not have lawful authority to be on the land where the tent was pitched; it was a public park.

Any expectation of privacy was lost.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Isn’t this the same guy that told people to keep their car keys by the door? Allows the low lifes to have an easier time taking your car, without interacting further with the household?

No, that was another officer of the law.

Leave car keys by the front door to avoid home invasion, Toronto police officer says | Globalnews.ca

The Toronto Police Service issued a statement Wednesday confirming that an officer made the remarks at a recent community meeting.

globalnews.ca

 

[KevinB]

Just because someone’s living rough doesn’t mean police get to just arbitrarily go through all their stuff. Search warrants are generally not hard to get, and makes the search presumptively reasonable in court. It would suck to find some good evidence of various offences and have it all tossed cause you were lazy and didn’t get a simple warrant.

What’s the definition of dwelling or domicile in Canada wrt that?

I’m just curious what plain view would be considered in Canada for a tent or cardboard box.

Down here the Obama era AG and USMS GC ruled that for any Federal Felon that was wanted by the Violent Fugitive Task Force if the spent one night in a dwelling it was a deemed residence, and the arrest warrant gave automatic search warrant authority to enter and search those premises. I tend to doubt that would fly in Canada - and admittedly unless it was an immediately actionable time sensitive issue the teams I was on would try to get a warrant anyway just for clarity. But given the nature of those folks we were after it wasn’t hard to get a warrant.

 

[OldSolduer]

Just because someone’s living rough doesn’t mean police get to just arbitrarily go through all their stuff. Search warrants are generally not hard to get, and makes the search presumptively reasonable in court. It would suck to find some good evidence of various offences and have it all tossed cause you were lazy and didn’t get a simple warrant.

I understand that but the people who actually have homes in the areas affected have a different opinion. They are pissed that a "temporary shelter" which does not meet building codes is given the same legal protection as a real house.

Not only that but the shit rats are starting to expand into other areas of the city.

 

[brihard]

What’s the definition of dwelling or domicile in Canada wrt that?

I’m just curious what plain view would be considered in Canada for a tent or cardboard box.

In Canada it’s ’Dwelling House’ Not sure if that would apply to a tent in a camp (I think it actually might?), but it doesn’t have to.

“Plain view” has to be literally plain view. I’ve gotta be lawfully placed and see the thing without opening or manipulating anything.

I understand that but the people who actually have homes in the areas affected have a different opinion. They are pissed that a "temporary shelter" which does not meet building codes is given the same legal protection as a real house.

Not only that but the shit rats are starting to expand into other areas of the city.

We don’t just need search warrants for houses, but for any “building, receptacle, or place”. This can be a commercial office, someone’s car, a storage unit, a locker at a school or a bus station. The legal threshold for a search warrant of a house is not any different from any of those other places.

The legal concept is the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ derived from Section 8 of the Charter, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Establishing REP is not a high bar to hit. There are greater protections of that in the criminal investigative realm than, say, administrative matters that don’t carry criminal jeopardy.

So, if we get a warrant to search tents at a homeless camp, it’s not because they’re being treated the same as your house, but just that they’re treated the same as anywhere someone might have an expectation of privacy over the contents. Fundamentally it’s the same principle that means I can’t just arbitrarily open a car trunk or centre console for the purpose of looking for criminal evidence.

Again, not hard to get a simple search warrant. The threshold isn’t very high- but it DOES exist.

 

[KevinB]

In Canada it’s ’Dwelling House’ Not sure if that would apply to a tent in a camp (I think it actually might?), but it doesn’t have to.

“Plain view” has to be literally plain view. I’ve gotta be lawfully placed and see the thing without opening or manipulating anything.

Down here some states have some odd rules on what opening or manipulating mean.
A curtain (or tent flap) is fair game to move - but a window isn't - unless it is a vehicle.

We don’t just need search warrants for houses, but for any “building, receptacle, or place”. This can be a commercial office, someone’s car, a storage unit, a locker at a school or a bus station. The legal threshold for a search warrant of a house is not any different from any of those other places.

The legal concept is the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ derived from Section 8 of the Charter, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Establishing REP is not a high bar to hit. There are greater protections of that in the criminal investigative realm than, say, administrative matters that don’t carry criminal jeopardy.

So, if we get a warrant to search tents at a homeless camp, it’s not because they’re being treated the same as your house, but just that they’re treated the same as anywhere someone might have an expectation of privacy over the contents. Fundamentally it’s the same principle that means I can’t just arbitrarily open a car trunk or centre console for the purpose of looking for criminal evidence.

My Suburban in Virginia only has protections for the glove box and center console safe. The back is considered plain view, a hard cover sunshade over the cargo area isn't "protection" as if the rear is opened it is in plain view (pretty sure the Judge that ruled on that one hates SUV's and/or PickUps).
You can't get anyone to open a trunk without a warrant (I mean you can ask them if they would be willing to open it without a warrant, but can't compel them without one) - but a SUV or Station Wagon can be forced to open the back - the same reason as getting windows opened - due to it being a passenger compartment and officer safety (if you have RAS/PC to stop them already...).

Again, not hard to get a simple search warrant. The threshold isn’t very high- but it DOES exist.

Agreed

 

[lenaitch]

Down here the Obama era AG and USMS GC ruled that for any Federal Felon that was wanted by the Violent Fugitive Task Force if the spent one night in a dwelling it was a deemed residence, and the arrest warrant gave automatic search warrant authority to enter and search those premises. I tend to doubt that would fly in Canada - and admittedly unless it was an immediately actionable time sensitive issue the teams I was on would try to get a warrant anyway just for clarity. But given the nature of those folks we were after it wasn’t hard to get a warrant.

Up here, a 'search warrant' is for evidence of a crime; an 'arrest warrant' is for the apprehension of a named wanted person. In addition to Brihard's response related to search warrants, if an arrest warrant holder intends to enter a dwelling house 'sans announcement' (i.e. dynamically/with vigour), the warrant needs a 'Feeney endorsement' under Sec. 529.4(1) CC.

As for the definition of a 'dwelling house' under the Criminal Code:

dwelling-house means the whole or any part of a building or structure that is kept or occupied as a permanent or temporary residence, and includes

• (a) a building within the curtilage of a dwelling-house that is connected to it by a doorway or by a covered and enclosed passage-way, and
• (b) a unit that is designed to be mobile and to be used as a permanent or temporary residence and that is being used as such a residence; (maison d’habitation)

 

[KevinB]

Up here, a 'search warrant' is for evidence of a crime; an 'arrest warrant' is for the apprehension of a named wanted person.

Same here. However for Violent Fugitives, the justification I mentioned above is that Arrest Warrant grants Search Warrant powers for any place they have rested their pretty little head -- the justification was anyone at that dwelling was helping a fleeing felon and so had no legal expectation of privacy or protections from search and seizure. It hasn't faced a USSC challenge yet - so that could be interesting.
It worried me back then (and quite frankly President Obama IMHO undermined the Constitution a lot more than POTUS Trump, as a lot of what 47 has done was enabled by 44).

In addition to Brihard's response related to search warrants, if an arrest warrant holder intends to enter a dwelling house 'sans announcement' (i.e. dynamically/with vigour), the warrant needs a 'Feeney endorsement' under Sec. 529.4(1) CC.

So down here each state has a time from announcement to entry, (outside of "No Knocks") as well as some states limit the hours of the search, unless there is compelling evidence or reason to not.
I've literally sat outside a house for several hours until the sun came up because the judge didn't believe that the search needed to be conducted outside the hours of Dawn to Dusk.

As for the definition of a 'dwelling house' under the Criminal Code:

dwelling-house means the whole or any part of a building or structure that is kept or occupied as a permanent or temporary residence, and includes

• (a) a building within the curtilage of a dwelling-house that is connected to it by a doorway or by a covered and enclosed passage-way, and
• (b) a unit that is designed to be mobile and to be used as a permanent or temporary residence and that is being used as such a residence; (maison d’habitation)

Thx.

 

[Booter]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/charges-bike-chop-shop-search-warrant-1.7620632

Here’s a little more background on the Winnipeg camp search- it’s a little more nuanced than search warrants for a homeless camp. My guess is the charges are stayed with these details.

And again more

Precedent-setting warrant to search Winnipeg encampment called ‘troubling’

A residents’ group has questioned whether the Winnipeg Police Service’s use of a warrant to search a homeless encampment in Point Douglas could set a “troubling” precedent. Amy Robinson, the Point Dou...

www.winnipegfreepress.com

It looks like they were using a warrant to “inspect” a temporary structure that they suspected was being used for illegal purposes as a bike chop shop,

In my experience warrants to inspect that turn into charges aren’t super successful, especially when defence says that it is a guise for police to search, and it has to be done in a very specific way when you switch from one style of investigation to another. Courts don’t like clever.

I’ve dismantled a few homeless encampments and search several others. We ve always had these talks but I don’t think there was usually a warrant for these investigations if I am recalling- but the law is always changing. And we weren’t searching for evidence but rather dismantling public and safety hazards so they weren’t exactly being tested in court.

I can’t think of a time where I searched it for evidence that I can draw on. They did however once elect a mayor- who told police to leave and when he introduced himself they realized he had Canada wide warrants and he was arrested from deep in the camp with no issues of police taking them from the tents or retrieving him.

Here’s the article lambasting WPS, I agree with lots of it…other parts of it are a bit weird. Like the Major Case Management at CPC section…but overall seems like it’s got some good detail for an opinion piece.

GOLD: Police warrants for homeless shacks on public property mark new low in public safety

xxx

winnipegsun.com

 

[mariomike]

Readers wishing to "carry" when "down there" may, or may not, find this of interest.

"In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court changed all the rules".

LAWYER: 5 NEW Rules Every Gun Owner Must Know ( NEW COURT RULING ).

 

[brihard]

Up here, a 'search warrant' is for evidence of a crime; an 'arrest warrant' is for the apprehension of a named wanted person. In addition to Brihard's response related to search warrants, if an arrest warrant holder intends to enter a dwelling house 'sans announcement' (i.e. dynamically/with vigour), the warrant needs a 'Feeney endorsement' under Sec. 529.4(1) CC.

Yeah, I didn’t want to get into Feeneys, but that’s where it would matter.

As for the definition of a 'dwelling house' under the Criminal Code:

dwelling-house means the whole or any part of a building or structure that is kept or occupied as a permanent or temporary residence, and includes

• (a) a building within the curtilage of a dwelling-house that is connected to it by a doorway or by a covered and enclosed passage-way, and
• (b) a unit that is designed to be mobile and to be used as a permanent or temporary residence and that is being used as such a residence; (maison d’habitation)

I would definitely see an argument being made under (b). There’s probably case law, maybe I’ll see what I can find.

Same here. However for Violent Fugitives, the justification I mentioned above is that Arrest Warrant grants Search Warrant powers for any place they have rested their pretty little head -- the justification was anyone at that dwelling was helping a fleeing felon and so had no legal expectation of privacy or protections from search and seizure. It hasn't faced a USSC challenge yet - so that could be interesting.

Wow. Definitely nothing like that here.

So down here each state has a time from announcement to entry, (outside of "No Knocks") as well as some states limit the hours of the search, unless there is compelling evidence or reason to not.
I've literally sat outside a house for several hours until the sun came up because the judge didn't believe that the search needed to be conducted outside the hours of Dawn to Dusk.

Searches here are ‘by day’ (0609-2100) unless we specifically request and are granted hours outside of that. Not hard to get as long as it’s reasonably articulated. But yeah, sometimes we’ll get set up and wait for the clock to tick to six before LARPing as the world’s most obnoxious alarm clock.

 

[KevinB]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-officer-pleads-guilty-charges-shooting-devon-fowlin-1.7618910

That is a wild call. The officer shot him because he started cutting his neck. That’s a hard one to articulate…

He was camping in the park as well. Part of the initial call. Homeless male with knife camped in the park

I am totally speechless. I missed this one yesterday. I had originally thought the BC footage was from the female constable with the taser - and wasn't seeing what the issue was, didn't realize that Dudley Dooright had discharged his service pistol.
Then I watched it on my desktop today and was like WTF!!!

Now in partial defense of the Constable who fired his Glock, another officer was yelling Shoot him - which definitely should have been TASE HIM not Shoot him - quite often in LEO Shootings an officer will fire based on either other officers shooting and/or verbal comments from other officers - as the logical conclusion is that those officers are seeing something that justifies that action from their view point.

That said there is no rationale for a slew of actions taken in this video.

Guy was in a parked car - has a knife in a sheath in his belt.

Initial contact officer makes the approach - the defendant also approaches - as well as two others - it was a screw up from the start in that respect - as there should be 1 contact officer - to make it clear who is taking to the suspect - having 4 LEO's approach and all start telling the suspect different things is going to raise anyones blood pressure and definitely not good for MH challenged individuals. @Booter pointed out that boxing him in wasn't the correct call - and it was just a mess.

Not up on Ontario/Toronto knife laws, but having a knife in an open sheath isn't illegal is it?

 

[KevinB]

Readers wishing to "carry" when "down there" may, or may not, find this of interest.

"In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court changed all the rules".

LAWYER: 5 NEW Rules Every Gun Owner Must Know ( NEW COURT RULING ).

That guy is a terrible lawyer.

He grossly misinterprets the USSC Decision as well as the previous rules.

 

[mariomike]

That guy is a terrible lawyer.

He grossly misinterprets the USSC Decision as well as the previous rules.

Which is why I was careful to say,

Readers wishing to "carry" when "down there" may, or may not, find this of interest.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There was a case up here years ago involving "curtilage" and revolved around if taking your gun to the garage meant it was "In use" or "in transport". Besides the covered/enclosed bit, whether your property is fenced or not and then how close to the actual dwelling place you are on the property also plays a part. So on a 4 acre property, the corner furthest from the house, there was a low expectation of privacy.

Up here, RV and boats can also be deemed "dwelling places".

 

[brihard]

I am totally speechless. I missed this one yesterday. I had originally thought the BC footage was from the female constable with the taser - and wasn't seeing what the issue was, didn't realize that Dudley Dooright had discharged his service pistol.
Then I watched it on my desktop today and was like WTF!!!

Now in partial defense of the Constable who fired his Glock, another officer was yelling Shoot him - which definitely should have been TASE HIM not Shoot him - quite often in LEO Shootings an officer will fire based on either other officers shooting and/or verbal comments from other officers - as the logical conclusion is that those officers are seeing something that justifies that action from their view point.

That said there is no rationale for a slew of actions taken in this video.

Guy was in a parked car - has a knife in a sheath in his belt.

Initial contact officer makes the approach - the defendant also approaches - as well as two others - it was a screw up from the start in that respect - as there should be 1 contact officer - to make it clear who is taking to the suspect - having 4 LEO's approach and all start telling the suspect different things is going to raise anyones blood pressure and definitely not good for MH challenged individuals. @Booter pointed out that boxing him in wasn't the correct call - and it was just a mess.

Not up on Ontario/Toronto knife laws, but having a knife in an open sheath isn't illegal is it?

Even with such a verbal prompt every officer is still accountable for the lawfulness of their use of force. Someone of a higher rank saying “shoot him” would not absolve a police officer of legal responsibility for a bad shoot.

I’m not sure how it works in terms of any additional nuance in a formal critical incident command context where a Critical Incident Commander is in charge and has, say, a sniper set up. Booter may speak to this.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Even with such a verbal prompt every officer is still accountable for the lawfulness of their use of force. Someone of a higher rank saying “shoot him” would not absolve a police officer of legal responsibility for a bad shoot.

I’m not sure how it works in terms of any additional nuance in a formal critical incident command context where a Critical Incident Commander is in charge and has, say, a sniper set up. Booter may speak to this.

As always: before you pull the trigger, make sure you're ready to answer to a Judge.

 

[Booter]

There’s a verbalization that’s pretty formal about what is going to happen that is acknowledged across the operation where everything is put on the commander, but the NTOA recommended course of action includes that you still articulate the full understanding of why to everyone so that they have the grounds as well and not just your word.

So oversimplifying it, rather than, “if he comes to the window again you shoot him”, it’s “based on his shooting at us and the neighbours house, and not being able to safely extract the occupants- if he comes to the window again section 25 applies and we need to stop the threat as xyz may be seriously hurt or killed”.

Then your shooters have articulable grounds and not just permission. This can be done pretty quickly, isn’t done lightly from my understanding.

In a microcosm I could see similar on a call, you’ve got a guy being arrested, he reaches into his waistband against commands and your partner calls that he can see a gun- your grounds are being informed by others observations- they aren’t giving your permission but they are informing your decisions… in this Toronto case we re saying the officers command “shoot” is connected to the trigger finger of the other officer- that’s wrong, but the officers verbalizations can be connected to the officers understanding of the totality of the situation and can inform his shoot. In the second case they remain in command of their decision making and can be okay…in the former it’s not going to go super well.

But this isn’t my bread and butter anymore so I could be outside of current practice. But I think I’m in the parking lot.

 

[Jarnhamar]

In Canada it’s ’Dwelling House’ Not sure if that would apply to a tent in a camp (I think it actually might?), but it doesn’t have to.

Makes you wonder if a vampire with a search warrant can enter your home uninvited.

 

[OldSolduer]

Makes you wonder if a vampire with a search warrant can enter your home uninvited.

The Count enters the chat