RCMP Seize Helicopter

RCMP SEIZE HELICPTER

www.vancouversun.com

RCMP have seized a bell ranger helicopter from a suspected smuggler.
Though the man was arrested and released in May, without charges, they have now taken his property without charges or trial.

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 10/5/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

Here i thought the burden iof proof rested on the prosecution....!
It seems that canada has some sneaky seizure laws up its sleeve.
This is not what i would call legal.
It amounts to stealing anyones property as long as you make up a good enough storyand are in the RCMP!
Where is the mans rights?

www.vancouversun.com (visit the link for the full news article)

Wow..that is totally screwed up..

Charges dropped due to lack of evidence.. yet they can keep the helicopter???

Something very very wrong with this picture..

They do this all the time if someone has alot of cash. They dont have to prove anything. They just say it's drug money and keep it.

reply to post by PsykoOps


apparenlty ther is actually some legal criteria and an act that applies - perhaps someone in Canada could do some research into it??
From the linked article:

The RCMP referred the seizure to the B.C. Civil Forfeiture Office for follow-up.

Criminal charges are not being pursued due to lack of evidence, but the helicopter is being held under the Civil Forfeiture Act.

In fact it's easy enough to find - link to the act

Wiki article on asset seizure

When you think about it, this is no different from the criminal and civil cases against OJ Simpson - the criminal case could nto be proved....but the civil case was another matter entirely due to lesser evidential requirements.

This was part of the information in the article linked on the ACT of Asset Forfeiture.

Interesting.

Abuses and controversy The widespread use of such proceedings, which usually involve assertion of in rem jurisdiction, has also brought many complaints about their misuse to deprive innocent persons of their lawful property. Without a requirement to prove that a crime had been committed, much less committed by the party in possession of the property, it has become too easy for law enforcement personnel to seize and prosecutors to forfeit properties worth as much as $20,000 because it will likely cost the person that much in legal fees to recover them. This is because in such cases the courts no longer abide by the old common law rule that the party in possession is to be presumed the lawful owner unless it is proved otherwise. Thus, a person carrying $6,000 in cash to a vehicle auction where the auctioneer will only take cash may be stopped and his cash seized because it is presumed only a drug dealer would have or carry that much cash. The problem is exacerbated by the laws and rules that allow the agencies seizing the assets to keep the money for their operations, including the funding of salaries and promotions, the purchase of vehicles and equipment, and discretionary spending. In addition, there are often not strict controls on how the assets are liquidated, and law enforcement agents are discovered to have acquired forfeited assets, such as vehicles, boats, and other luxury items, without having paid full market value for them, or even anything at all. There have even been complaints about law enforcement officers seizing cash and other assets under the pretext of forfeiture and then just keeping them without reporting the seizure. Another potential abuse involves the timing of police seizures. The police cannot auction seized illegal drugs, but using asset forfeiture they can keep or auction lawful goods purchased with money from the sale of illegal drugs. If the police wait to arrest a suspect they believe to be in possession of illegal drugs until after he or she has sold them, they stand to gain more from asset forfeiture than if they effect an immediate arrest while the suspect is still in possession of the illegal drugs. In this way, police forces are perversely discouraged to stop the sale of illegal drugs, so that the value of these drugs may be converted through unlawful sales into property the police can make use of. The opportunity of forfeiture also gives the police an incentive to exert political influence, in their official capacity and through their unions, against liberalization of drug laws. In South Africa the Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 is inconsistent with section 25(1) of the South African Bill of Rights. Even before a person has committed a crime, the right of every person to own property is severely derogated by civil forfeiture. According to section 36(1), civil rights may be derogated only to the extent that the derogation is reasonable and justifiable.

We can only look to more seizures and less arrests for crime then....?
this is bogus!
The erosion of peoples rights under british common law (the basis for canadian law)has been marked.
With the next layer, the new crime bill that His Majesty prince Harper wants to pass we will all be terrorists cause its easier to put us away without ever being heard from again.......no hearing, no trial, no civil liberties lawyer, no hope.
The US and canadas laws will be harmonized whether we want it or not!

reply to post by stirling


while at first glance it sounds unlawful "asset forfeiture "simply shifts the burden of proof to the defendant .

Time catches up with everyone. Those whom do negative things can expect a negative future. No one gets away with stuff like this, it always catches up with them sooner or later. I hope that the Canadians don't take much more of this sort of thing going on before they follow suit and take a stand against a corrupted and overpowered "justice system"

Not surprising in the least. I'm sure that the pilot probably had a business that required the use of his copter (even if it may have been a cover).

On the other hand, it wouldn't be the first time BC civilians use helicopters to smuggle drugs over the border.

Overall, without evidence or proof of any crime, the cops only prove how much they care about morals and justice itself by not returning this property to the owner.