Crazy this isn’t a federal law in the US. Thankfully the state I live in does it same as Canada but many states do not and it’s probably contributed to many overdoses.
Thank goodness for Canada and a sane judicial system here, though I’m not sure how the initial court ruling came to be.
Without a rule like this, the people who are most able to take immediate action for people suffering drug-related problems won’t, for fear of prosecution.
Courts in the US have basically ruled police can essentially fabricate the laws you broke to justify arresting you.
I mean he still went through a horrible ordeal. So they still have a reason not to call EMS. Unless the cops who arrested him face some consequences, they’ll just keep doing this. “Arrest 'em all and let the courts sort 'em out” is not a good strategy.
edit:
Hawkins said this legislation is different from other Acts in that it “relies on trust.”
“Drug users have to trust that the police aren’t going to arrest them at the scene. They have to trust that the legislation is going to protect them, and so this decision from the court is a strong signal to them that they can trust that protection and they should trust that protection,” he said.
The responding RCMP officers (edit2: also the prosecutors, and everybody else who was involved in this guy’s detention and trial and knew the circumstances of his arrest) violated that trust. Will they face consequences?
Anybody in the process could’ve stepped in so much earlier. Did nobody in the process of taking this guy downtown and booking him in for trial did nobody say “oh shit he was arrested while calling in a medical emergency cut him loose!”. This should’ve been handled long before the lawyers got involved.
Idiotic. They argued that it was two separate instances and the trial court agreed. His trunk was a second location than his car since the person wasn’t overdosing in the trunk, lol.
That’s the case for most governments it would seem
Take California for example: the trunk is the acceptable location for a firearm to be transported in as it is separate from the main driving area of the vehicle
Because, you know, it’s kinda hard to get to the trunk while you’re driving
In Canada it’s recommended that you carry liquor in the trunk as well (esp if it’s open), to avoid cops dragging you down to the station for a breathalyzer.
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Justice Robert Leurer was faced with a central question when considering whether to throw out Paul Eric Wilson’s conviction.
In overturning Wilson’s eight-year sentence, Leurer referred to the six-year-old Good Samaritan Act, which protects people from conviction if they’re charged as a result of seeking assistance for, or having remained at the scene with, someone suffering from a medical emergency.
Leurer notes officers from the Warman RCMP detachment were responding to Wilson’s call reporting a drug overdose.
Leurer ruling said Wilson’s overarching argument was that the search leading to the incriminating items and the subsequent charges was incidental to the first “prohibited” arrest.
Pierre Hawkins, legal counsel for John Howard Society, led the charge as an intervenor in Wilson’s case.
“We see this as the court sending a strong message to both police forces about arresting people in these situations and about training officers in those cases,” Hawkins said.
The original article contains 651 words, the summary contains 147 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Crazy this isn’t a federal law in the US. Thankfully the state I live in does it same as Canada but many states do not and it’s probably contributed to many overdoses.
Thank goodness for Canada and a sane judicial system here, though I’m not sure how the initial court ruling came to be.
Without a rule like this, the people who are most able to take immediate action for people suffering drug-related problems won’t, for fear of prosecution.
Courts in the US have basically ruled police can essentially fabricate the laws you broke to justify arresting you.
Good. We can’t give people reasons to not call EMS.
I mean he still went through a horrible ordeal. So they still have a reason not to call EMS. Unless the cops who arrested him face some consequences, they’ll just keep doing this. “Arrest 'em all and let the courts sort 'em out” is not a good strategy.
edit:
The responding RCMP officers (edit2: also the prosecutors, and everybody else who was involved in this guy’s detention and trial and knew the circumstances of his arrest) violated that trust. Will they face consequences?
deleted by creator
Trusting the RCMP?
That’s not something I’m willing to bet on.
They could have easily investigated and recorded and simply sent the information along to the AG to decide if an arrest is appropriate.
Anybody in the process could’ve stepped in so much earlier. Did nobody in the process of taking this guy downtown and booking him in for trial did nobody say “oh shit he was arrested while calling in a medical emergency cut him loose!”. This should’ve been handled long before the lawyers got involved.
Also curbs dropping people off outside of emergency rooms.
Excellent news. This law will save lives.
Idiotic. They argued that it was two separate instances and the trial court agreed. His trunk was a second location than his car since the person wasn’t overdosing in the trunk, lol.
That’s the case for most governments it would seem
Take California for example: the trunk is the acceptable location for a firearm to be transported in as it is separate from the main driving area of the vehicle
Because, you know, it’s kinda hard to get to the trunk while you’re driving
In Canada it’s recommended that you carry liquor in the trunk as well (esp if it’s open), to avoid cops dragging you down to the station for a breathalyzer.
Ya, glad the appeals court judge had some common sense.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Justice Robert Leurer was faced with a central question when considering whether to throw out Paul Eric Wilson’s conviction.
In overturning Wilson’s eight-year sentence, Leurer referred to the six-year-old Good Samaritan Act, which protects people from conviction if they’re charged as a result of seeking assistance for, or having remained at the scene with, someone suffering from a medical emergency.
Leurer notes officers from the Warman RCMP detachment were responding to Wilson’s call reporting a drug overdose.
Leurer ruling said Wilson’s overarching argument was that the search leading to the incriminating items and the subsequent charges was incidental to the first “prohibited” arrest.
Pierre Hawkins, legal counsel for John Howard Society, led the charge as an intervenor in Wilson’s case.
“We see this as the court sending a strong message to both police forces about arresting people in these situations and about training officers in those cases,” Hawkins said.
The original article contains 651 words, the summary contains 147 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!