Jun
29
2009
Victoria police and BC Transit invite lawsuits over mandatory searches
Author: Jesse LobdellBC Transit has announced a policy not to allow alcohol on Victoria’s transit vehicles on Canada Day, stating that service will be “monitored” and customers will be asked to demonstrate compliance. Those who refuse to be searched will apparently not be allowed to board transit vehicles. The news release included a comment from the Victoria police chief applauding this policy.
The policy is simply unlawful, and the BC Civil Liberties Association is advising victims of this policy to consult legal counsel about bringing a class action or other civil suit should they be subjected to an illegal search. People who feel compelled to submit to a search, even if they consent to such a search in order to board a bus, may argue that they have been subjected to unlawful detention and search. As a matter of law, the police must catalogue all seized property so that it can be reclaimed or individuals can be compensated for lost or destroyed legal property.
It’s not just the BCCLA calling the searches unlawful.
In 2008, the BCCLA filed a complaint against the Victoria Police Department and four other police departments in the capital region for implementing a program of mandatory searches for alcohol on Canada Day. The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP agreed to do a public interest investigation based on the complaint, ultimately finding that the practice was unlawful on many levels. The CPC report went so far as to say that even search checkpoints based on consent are “potentially irreconcilable with ensuring that the citizen is aware of the right not to be searched.”
The CPC report examined the British Columbia Transit Act and found that
“The transit employee’s power to deny the use of a transit vehicle is contingent upon the person’s disobedience of a sign or failure to comply with rules. The disobedience or failure must be established before the employee may take such action. The regulation does not authorize the transit employee to search the passenger or would-be passenger in order to determine whether the person is disobeying or not complying. It is not the source of a power to search passengers’ bags.”
RCMP Commissioner William Elliott agreed with the CPC report and stated that
“the British Columbia Transit Act and Transit Conduct and Safety Regulation do not authorize searches of passengers’ bags at the bus stops.”
As a result of the CPC report, Commissioner Elliott has expressly directed RCMP members not to participate in mandatory search programs. The RCMP will police public drinking and intoxication with police presence, a method that works without any intrusion into civil liberties. The Victoria Police Department seems determined to waste time and energy on unlawful searches. And now they seem determined to waste the City of Victoria’s budget defending lawsuits. Clearly the police need to find another way.
It shows real scorn for the law to implement a policy known to be unlawful.
Tags: BCCLA Police Complaints, Search & Seizure, Victoria PD



July 21st, 2009 at 3:23 pm
There is a valid reason for NO ALCOHOL on the buses
because a lot of people can not deal well with drinking
and being respectful downtown. There needs to be more
alcohol and drug awareness programs in BC. The level
of violence increases as some people drink and do drugs.
There is never any excuse for being drunk & disorderly
in public. Teens and other young adults are very irresponsible
after drinking in Victoria. The amount of people that go to
the drunk tank is amazing. I have been observing the way
people act after a night out and personal responsibility
never happens. It is sad to see someone, regardless of age,
act foolish after drinking. It is childish and wrong.
Taking chances while drunk is crazy. You almost need a bunch
of “personal babysitters” for these drunk folks. The picture
I am trying to paint is, drink but don’t act out. If you can’t
remember your actions, drink less or not at all. Drinking is
over rated anyhow. BC Transit has every right to protect their investment. Young kids trash the buses for some reason. Too
much booze and no self-respect/respect period! EX CANADA DAY 2008-09. Thanks…
March 25th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Can you cite the following sentence?
“As a matter of law, the police must catalogue all seized property so that it can be reclaimed or individuals can be compensated for lost or destroyed legal property.”
Thank you!
March 25th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Sure can! Section 8 of the Charter, S. 322 of the Criminal Code, and a very long history of property law. The police must have legal authority to seize property, such as legal powers under the motor vehicle act to take your car or a judicial order to seize your computer as evidence. If the police take, they must document that seizure. Official seizures have official paperwork. Otherwise, what would be the difference between seizure and theft?
March 25th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Hum, maybe I’m misunderstanding your initial statement-particularly the part where individuals can be compensated for destroyed legal property.
For instance, lets say an innocent third party consents to have their property seized during an investigation but at some point while in the police custody the property was destroyed by applying certain investigative forensic techniques. Based off your statement above, the innocent third party should be compensated for the destruction of the legal property.
The citations you provided work for unlawfully seized property by the police but not for lawfully seized property. Is there anything that applies where there is a lawfully seizure?