For some teams, the CFL Offseason is here. Rather than lose all the coaching movement discussions to the Regular season thread, I thought we could start putting it here.

Those teams currently lost in the wilderness:

Ottawa

Toronto

BC

Montreal

Calgary

Edmonton

Saskatchewan

Hamilton

The champs are here.. the champs are here... Winnipeg*

 

*Grey Cup Champions

6 minutes ago, J5V said:

 The mind boggles at how in the world these gentlemen thought they were just going to drive across the border into the U.S. like that. Were they just that stupid? Sure looks that way.

Maybe they thought they were still in the 'true north strong and free'  Even here that looks like 'bootleg' stuff BUT I think the penalty would most likely be a little lighter...Dumb move in any event

Edited February 21, 20205 yr by Stickem

50 minutes ago, JCon said:

He was diversifying is assets, yo. 

Sure, and maybe I am out-of-touch with these things nowadays, but is weed even a thing any more? I mean, it is far from a performance enhancing drug. Likely just the opposite. I thought cocaine was the drug of choice among athletes nowadays -- improves performance, clears the system quickly, is easier to hide/transport, doesn't reek, and is much more profitable. 

It just gets better ... "When they approached secondary inspection at the Sierra Blanca checkpoint near the US border with Mexico, Robinson told the Uber driver he would pay them to claim the marijuana, the complaint said, according to the release. The driver refused and said they would not have driven had they known about the drugs."

26 minutes ago, J5V said:

Oh I agree completely. I have a ton of compassion for Hefney and the circumstances of his incarceration. This, as you say, is on a whole different The mind boggles at how in the world these gentlemen thought they were just going to drive across the border into the U.S. like that. Were they just that stupid? Sure looks that way.

They weren't trying to cross a border - the US does this dumb **** on their borders where they put immigration/federal law checkpoints up to 100 miles away from the actual border.

They actually aren't necessarily hooped - if they hire a good lawyer and those federal agents didn't do a good job of documenting their probable cause (The story says they passed by an agent whose dog signalled him as they passed) AND they didn't consent to have their vehicle searched (this is important).  

It's possible the search could be found to be a violation of their 4th amendment rights and therefore the evidence discovered in the search is inadmissible.

 

A lot of ifs.

3 minutes ago, BomberfanMKS said:

They weren't trying to cross a border - the US does this dumb **** on their borders where they put immigration/federal law checkpoints up to 100 miles away from the actual border.

They actually aren't necessarily hooped - if they hire a good lawyer and those federal agents didn't do a good job of documenting their probable cause (The story says they passed by an agent whose dog signalled him as they passed) AND they didn't consent to have their vehicle searched (this is important).  

It's possible the search could be found to be a violation of their 4th amendment rights and therefore the evidence discovered in the search is inadmissible.

 

A lot of ifs.

If the drug detecting dog alerts them, why would they need consent to search the vehicle? 

8 minutes ago, BomberfanMKS said:

They weren't trying to cross a border - the US does this dumb **** on their borders where they put immigration/federal law checkpoints up to 100 miles away from the actual border.

Right you are ... "According to a criminal complaint by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Robinson, Bray and an unidentified third person were driving from Los Angeles to Louisiana in a rented car through a remote section of West Texas. When they passed a Border Patrol agent with a drug-sniffing dog, the animal detected the scent of marijuana. The agent radioed ahead to a checkpoint where the patrol inspected the vehicle, finding several large duffel bags containing marijuana. Also found were glass jars and packaging equipment, along with $3,100 in cash."

5 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

If the drug detecting dog alerts them, why would they need consent to search the vehicle? 

Maybe because they weren't crossing the border. Maybe since they were already in the U.S. then they'd need consent or a warrant.

Unlike Hefney, Greg Robinson is a wealthy man. Let's see if he is able to buy himself some favourable American justice.

5 minutes ago, J5V said:

Maybe because they weren't crossing the border. Maybe since they were already in the U.S. then they'd need consent or a warrant.

I don't follow that logic

Just now, Geebrr said:

I don't follow that logic

Crossing the border, you don't have the right to refuse a search. US Border Patrol do not need a warrant or probably cause to search. 

1 minute ago, JCon said:

Crossing the border, you don't have the right to refuse a search. US Border Patrol do not need a warrant or probably cause to search. 

The dog has a job to detect drugs. It did. Probable cause has been established. 

I don't really get the logic.

1 minute ago, Geebrr said:

The dog has a job to detect drugs. It did. Probable cause has been established. 

I don't really get the logic.

That is what is being reported but we don't know the circumstances. If this were a border stop, there would be no questions; however, the accused have rights in this case. 

4 minutes ago, JCon said:

Crossing the border, you don't have the right to refuse a search. US Border Patrol do not need a warrant or probably cause to search. 

Just to clarify, I don't believe they were crossing a border crossing. They were coming from Los Angeles to new Orleans i believe.  Why they chose that you way is beyond me though! 🤦

3 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

I don't follow that logic

4th Amendment, I believe.

"The Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful search and seizure generally prohibits arbitrary vehicle searches by police. If the police search your car without a warrant, your permission, or a valid reason, they are violating your constitutional rights."

Therefore, at least one of the following would have to be true ...

1. You have given the officer consent;
2. The officer has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in your vehicle;
3. The officer reasonably believes a search is necessary for their own protection (a hidden weapon, for example); and
4. You have been arrested and the search is related to that arrest (such as a search for illegal drugs).

The "probable cause" might be the one that sinks them.

Just now, JCon said:

That is what is being reported but we don't know the circumstances. If this were a border stop, there would be no questions; however, the accused have rights in this case. 

Where is it being reported that a drug detecting dog alerting agents to the presence of drugs could be a violation? 

I'd like to get more information on that. Sounds very odd.

5 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

The dog has a job to detect drugs. It did. Probable cause has been established. 

I suppose it would hinge on whether a judge agrees that a dog alert would constitute "probable cause".  I think it probably would and that you are correct.

4 minutes ago, J5V said:

4th Amendment, I believe.

"The Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful search and seizure generally prohibits arbitrary vehicle searches by police. If the police search your car without a warrant, your permission, or a valid reason, they are violating your constitutional rights."

Therefore, at least one of the following would have to be true ...

1. You have given the officer consent;
2. The officer has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in your vehicle;
3. The officer reasonably believes a search is necessary for their own protection (a hidden weapon, for example); and
4. You have been arrested and the search is related to that arrest (such as a search for illegal drugs).

The "probable cause" might be the one that sinks them.

Again, the dog whose sole job is to identify the presence of drugs doing alerting an agent seems like more than enough probable cause to search the vehicle without consent. 

I don't get the procedural error. Why have the dog at all?

1 minute ago, Geebrr said:

Again, the dog whose sole job is to identify the presence of drugs doing alerting an agent seems like more than enough probable cause to search the vehicle without consent. 

I don't get the procedural error. Why have the dog at all?

The dog did his job correctly. The question is, did the agents? All it takes is a technicality.

 

less option for Derrell Walker now. Leos has less money to sign him now. 

Just now, M.O.A.B. said:

 

I would like to welcome Derel Walker to the Blue Bombers! 

2 minutes ago, JCon said:

I would like to welcome Derel Walker to the Blue Bombers! 

it's a no brainer, if I'm Walker.

It's Walker or nothing for me now. 

Edited February 21, 20205 yr by M.O.A.B.

 

 

Cheap. Wow, cheap. I bet they're going to get him some money under the table. 

yup as much as I wanted Rhymes, it was moreso because I thought he would be the value option of all receivers...but seeing as we apparently have Walker money, or a ways and means to make it worth his while..then he'd be the more impactful signing 

1 hour ago, J5V said:

The dog did his job correctly. The question is, did the agents? All it takes is a technicality.

The dog definitely did it's job, which gave the agent the information required for the search.

So I think that in the spectrum of procedural defences, that one is going to be tough.