High River Report

[plmnnkoqaz]

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/12...-floods-report

OTTAWA -- RCMP officers acted outside of the law when they conducted warrantless searches and seizures of firearms during the southern Alberta floods of 2013, according to an independent report.
The seizures angered many residents of High River, just south of Calgary.
The report, issued by commission chair Ian McPhail, found that in instances where RCMP members entered homes to look for flood survivors their actions were lawful, "However, once inside the homes, RCMP members discovered firearms and contraband and, with insufficient supervision and guidance by senior RCMP members or any judicial oversight, performed warrantless searches and seizures of firearms from some of the evacuated homes."
Mounties claim they don't need warrants to seize firearms and that they only seized guns that were unsecured or improperly stored and in plain view.
MacPhail's report says that's not the case.
"In a number of instances, RCMP members seized firearms that were properly secured or that were not in plain view. In these cases the firearms were not removed with lawful authority."
The report also points out that while officers may have been justified in entering homes initially to search for survivors, subsequent visits to seize guns amounted to illegal warrantless searches.
McPhail's report lauds the Mounties for the good work they did in finding people stranded by the flood, rescuing pets or retrieving other items but the report points out that these good works do not absolve the RCMP from going beyond what is legally allowed.
"In several cases the searches exceeded their authorized scope by expanding from a search for people or pets to a search for firearms or contraband," McPhail states.
The commission interviewed residents who had moved their lawfully-owned guns to higher levels of their homes to protect them from the flood waters yet despite hiding the guns under sleeping bags, linens and the like returned home to find that the police had taken the firearms.
The Mounties claimed their seizures were justified by section 489 of the Criminal Code allowing police to seize items found in plain view while conducting a lawful search, in some case the report indicates that guns were seized in this manner and in compliance with the law but slams the police force for failing to follow through on their legal requirements by reporting what was seized to a judge.
"Absent a warrant, RCMP members were obligated to report their seizures to a justice pursuant to section 489.1 of the Criminal Code. The judicial oversight component of seizures cannot be overstated in the context of police officers taking personal property from a home," the report states.
The commission is not authorized to recommend criminal charges or sanctions against RCMP members that broke the law. Instead the report recommends better training in dealing with emergency situations, better communications and developing a policy for dealing with firearms seizures in future disasters.
The RCMP has not responded to the report publicly.

[Matt L.]

Good news. Now to see what, if anything, comes of it.

[dmcbride]

Wouldn't a locked house with no one in it be considered safe storage?

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Wouldn't a locked house with no one in it be considered safe storage?

Having trigger locked guns inside a locked container inside a locked house wasn't legal enough for the "occupying force"! They still broke in, used a bolt cutter on the locks and took the guns and then later said they didn't have them!

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Here is a link to the report
http://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/newsr...-river-alberta

ARG

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Wouldn't a locked house with no one in it be considered safe storage?

Nope.

Originally Posted by bobinthesky

Having trigger locked guns inside a locked container inside a locked house wasn't legal enough for the "occupying force"! They still broke in, used a bolt cutter on the locks and took the guns and then later said they didn't have them!

Do you have some evidence of this? I didn't see anything in the report that would indicate anyone even alleged that had happened.

ARG

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by Au revoir, Gopher

Nope.



Do you have some evidence of this? I didn't see anything in the report that would indicate anyone even alleged that had happened.

ARG

Of course you didn't ARG, that's because they used their boots. As attested by the number of doors and frames that required replacement.

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

Of course you didn't ARG, that's because they used their boots. As attested by the number of doors and frames that required replacement.

I'm talking specifically about cutting locks off guns. That what I understood was meant by "used a bolt cutter on the locks", maybe I misinterpreted.

The closest thing to this that I could find in the report was:

Finding No. 31: There is no information to support the claim that RCMP members breached any gun safes.

ARG

[gitrdun]

Perhaps it was I that misinterpreted ARG. All good.

[recce43]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Wouldn't a locked house with no one in it be considered safe storage?

yes it is if its trigger locked or the bolt has been removed .

[Sashi]

So Pleased!!! After such a though and damning report, I'm sure the appropriate heads will roll, What a bunch of Horse Puckey after 1 1/2 years. They sure soft soaped this one.
I,m so sorry for my poor communication.

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by Au revoir, Gopher

Nope.



Do you have some evidence of this? I didn't see anything in the report that would indicate anyone even alleged that had happened.

ARG

I have the bolt cut lock if you'd like to see it.

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by Au revoir, Gopher

I'm talking specifically about cutting locks off guns. That what I understood was meant by "used a bolt cutter on the locks", maybe I misinterpreted.

The closest thing to this that I could find in the report was:

Finding No. 31: There is no information to support the claim that RCMP members breached any gun safes.

ARG

This information was given to the investigators by myself and tape recorded. The investigating staff member was a retired RCMP member... surprised it's not in the report?

To be clear, I said nothing about cutting locks off guns, but a lock was cut off a storage cabinet.
When I asked the officers why they did that, they looked at each other and shrugged their shoulders and said nothing.

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by bobinthesky

This information was given to the investigators by myself and tape recorded. The investigating staff member was a retired RCMP member... surprised it's not in the report?

To be clear, I said nothing about cutting locks off guns, but a lock was cut off a storage cabinet.
When I asked the officers why they did that, they looked at each other and shrugged their shoulders and said nothing.

Thanks for the clarification. I must admit that I am having a hard time reconciling that information with Finding No. 31...

ARG

[dgitz]

I'm afraid that anyone who was hoping that this report would lead to anyone being held accountable will be sorely disappointed.

How does that song go? "I fought the law,..."

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by Au revoir, Gopher

Thanks for the clarification. I must admit that I am having a hard time reconciling that information with Finding No. 31...

ARG

That doesn't surprise me.

[Deo101]

Illegal Warrant less Search and Seizure = Break and Enter plus Theft for anyone else.

[Blackwolf]

The RCMP need to face criminal charges, not more training. When I hear things like "the people wanted us to do that and they thanked us for it"

Seems to me to be a pathetic excuse for thinking themselves above the law.

[gunluvr]

Ain't it funny that the police are always the first to point out that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it". However it doesn't apply to them when they break it.

[brad925]

At best they will get a slap on the hand! More likely it will get dragged out for so long people will just give up.

[bobalong]

If you want to listen to the biggest load of cover up BS, have a listen to this.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/propose...ntsForm-608886

All too often with incidents like this when someone does wrong, it is how they deal with it after the fact, that is the true measure of the character of the person. The RCMP failed miserably. Lying, and breaking the law makes them nothing but common criminals and they should be treated as such.

Charges must be laid against all the RCMP who ordered/participated in this fiasco. The MESSAGE has to be sent out loud and clear, that the RCMP or any other law enforcement agency cannot break the law and get away with it.

Incidents like this continue to diminish the respect for what was once, a proud and respectable "icon" of our country, some of them are far from that now. The members who participated in this incident should probably look for, or be forced to look for another career, as upholding the law, is obviously something they can never be trusted to do again.

What have the officers who participated in this incident taught both their and our children; if you are RCMP you can lie and break the law.....why, because you are the RCMP. These are not qualities of someone I would want to look at with respect or as being any kind of role model, and would surely not want them in any kind of law enforcement roll.

If they would have just owned up right at the beginning, stating we were overzealous, untrained for this, we screwed up, and apologized, people may have accepted that........but they chose to lie, so now if convicted, give them the max. Let the class action suits roll.

[twofifty]

roll

[michaelmicallef]

They where told to do this by someone . Believe me the week before the flood I was informed the the RCMP had a mandate to seize all firearms during a crisis. They were following orders. So their choice was to follow orders or quit their job.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by michaelmicallef

They where told to do this by someone . Believe me the week before the flood I was informed the the RCMP had a mandate to seize all firearms during a crisis. They were following orders. So their choice was to follow orders or quit their job.

Sorry not buying that one, knowingly breaking the law, which they did, because it was an order, doesn't cut it now, didn't cut it then.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by twofifty

roll

Thanks

[Jack&7]

Originally Posted by bobinthesky

I have the bolt cut lock if you'd like to see it.

Originally Posted by bobinthesky

This information was given to the investigators by myself and tape recorded. The investigating staff member was a retired RCMP member... surprised it's not in the report?

To be clear, I said nothing about cutting locks off guns, but a lock was cut off a storage cabinet.
When I asked the officers why they did that, they looked at each other and shrugged their shoulders and said nothing.

Curious, Bob...

Will you be providing this info to the Toronto Sun and any/all other news outlets that have chosen to cover this story (as it appears there are so few)?

I wonder what the response would be considering you claim to have direct evidence disproving Finding #31?

[michaelmicallef]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Sorry not buying that one, knowingly breaking the law, which they did, because it was an order, doesn't cut it now, didn't cut it then.

I agree but someone higher should also get whatever ,if anything, that is coming to them. Not just the messengers . We know the higher ups in the RCMP view law abiding citizens with firearms a threat. And probably not just the higher ups. Someone on this forum must have the inside scoop on what the RCMP's view is on the average Joe owning a firearm is. Well the RCMP has made that clear on more than one occasion. Even if they fire I few cops over this our " privallage " to own firearms is still in jeopardy.

[Got Juice?]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Wouldn't a locked house with no one in it be considered safe storage?

Depends on the circumstances. In mine, yes it does, but I meet certain criteria that most do not.

[Got Juice?]

Please refer to page 217 on the CFSC.

Adding to that the purpose of a safe is not to PREVENT THEFT, but limit it.

The REAL REASON for a safe, in the CFSC and in the firearms act to PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS BY UNLICENSED INDIVIDUALS.


So.

Do you live all alone? Do you have a room modified as semi-secure (keep in mind there are no perfect solutions) Do you live rurally? Do you have animals? Do you have predators?

If you answer yes to these questions, you may have a firearm at the ready on a temporary basis (no time limit specified) for the use of predator control (does not specify 2 or 4 legged)


5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,
(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or
(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and
(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.
(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.
(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

[Got Juice?]

So yes, your entire home can be considered a 'SAFE' but you better have all the conditions met, not just 1 or 2 items... ALL OF THEM.

And yes, you can 'safely store' a loaded firearm if it is for a use incompatible with hunting ie 'Predator Control'

I know this quite well