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

21 hours ago, bigg jay said:

They'll have a hard time saying they didn't notice any of this in the car...

 

The offensive lineman might of thought the duffel bag was lunch. You know so it coulda maybe been an accident.

16 minutes ago, M.O.A.B. said:

 

Eff

Ottawa has been sneakily quiet and their receivers are gross. Wonder if they sneak in with a big offer for Walker??

Edited February 21, 20205 yr by Bubba Zanetti

4 minutes ago, JCon said:

 

 

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

Farhan always under reports Lion salaries.

Grain of salt.

I want to voice my displeasure in missing out on Rhymes, so I want to convey my disappointment with a short poem.

What rhymes with Rhymes?

48 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

Farhan always under reports Lion salaries.

Grain of salt.

Whenever Farhan says a team is not out of the mix....they are out of the mix.

 

 

Maybe now they're out of the Walker "sweepstakes"? 

2 hours 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 sniffing for drugs is IN OF ITSELF considered a search so the police can't use the dog alerting as probable cause for making a search.

I.E. police can't walk up and down streets with a drug sniffing dog and when the dog alerts at a house, use that alert as probable cause for obtaining a warrant to search the house for drugs.

It's a little less clear with dogs alerting during routine traffic stops - IF a driver has committed some other driving offense AND the dog alerts while the officer is dealing with that offense then the search for drugs is OK.  Checkpoints further complicate the question, from what I understand at checkpoints police need to have pre-determined that they will pull over every nth car (every 2nd car, 5th car, 10th car, etc) to check for whatever the checkpoint is there to check for.  They can't actually change their rules for the checkpoint mid-stream.

So the border agent whose dog alerted him OUTSIDE of the checkpoint might not actually have the right to tell the checkpoint to do a further search because his dog alerting outside of the checkpoint is actually an illegal search by the dog.

 

Edited February 21, 20205 yr by BomberfanMKS

4 minutes ago, BomberfanMKS said:

So the border agent whose dog alerted him OUTSIDE of the checkpoint might not actually have the right to tell the checkpoint to do a further search because his dog alerting outside of the checkpoint is actually an illegal search by the dog.

That's the sort of technicality a good lawyer is going to exploit in favour of his client and I'm sure Mr. Robinson will be able to afford a good lawyer.

2 hours ago, Geebrr said:

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

Because a drug dog, in and of itself, does not equal probable cause.

14 minutes ago, JCon said:

 

 

Maybe now they're out of the Walker "sweepstakes"? 

They have to be.....

Just now, Bubba Zanetti said:

They have to be.....

Farhan's reporting that they're paying Holley in Save-On gift cards and Subway coupons, so they may still be able to fit Walker in. We'll see how this develops. 

4 minutes ago, JCon said:

Farhan's reporting that they're paying Holley in Save-On gift cards and Subway coupons, so they may still be able to fit Walker in. We'll see how this develops. 

His contract includes transportation compensation in the form of a Vancouver Transit bus pass.

12 minutes ago, JCon said:

Farhan's reporting that they're paying Holley in Save-On gift cards and Subway coupons, so they may still be able to fit Walker in. We'll see how this develops. 

Farhan has been reporting BC may be able to fit in walker before the cfl was created.

2 hours ago, J5V said:

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

Actually, there have been several cases in the US where it was proven in court that the dog handler had trained the dog to respond to a covert signal from the handler and react as if the dog had actually detected drugs. With that amount of ganja, it wouldn't take much for even a comatose dog to detect it.

Just now, Tracker said:

Actually, there have been several cases in the US where it was proven in court that the dog handler had trained the dog to respond to a covert signal from the handler and react as if the dog had actually detected drugs. With that amount of ganja, it wouldn't take much for even a comatose dog to detect it.

My buddy's dog ate a large quantity of his black hash once. Talk about a comatose dog.

 

 

Feel sorry for the mods that have to clean this thread up... 

*If* that salary is correct on Rhymes then I'm surprised that no other team would of offered more for a big play receiver who is tall and has some speed.   

4 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Feel sorry for the mods that have to clean this thread up... 

No thread is ever safe once the MBB legal team enters the discussion.

Edited February 21, 20205 yr by Pete Catan's Ghost

 

2 minutes ago, Pete Catan's Ghost said:

No thread is ever safe once the MBB legal team enters the discussion.

3 hours ago, BomberfanMKS said:

The dog sniffing for drugs is IN OF ITSELF considered a search so the police can't use the dog alerting as probable cause for making a search.

I.E. police can't walk up and down streets with a drug sniffing dog and when the dog alerts at a house, use that alert as probable cause for obtaining a warrant to search the house for drugs.

It's a little less clear with dogs alerting during routine traffic stops - IF a driver has committed some other driving offense AND the dog alerts while the officer is dealing with that offense then the search for drugs is OK.  Checkpoints further complicate the question, from what I understand at checkpoints police need to have pre-determined that they will pull over every nth car (every 2nd car, 5th car, 10th car, etc) to check for whatever the checkpoint is there to check for.  They can't actually change their rules for the checkpoint mid-stream.

So the border agent whose dog alerted him OUTSIDE of the checkpoint might not actually have the right to tell the checkpoint to do a further search because his dog alerting outside of the checkpoint is actually an illegal search by the dog.

 

We are making some pretty big assumptions here. Until some actual informatiomation comes out staring otherwise, safe to assume the dog was being used in an authorized/legal way. 

I havent seen any actual report stating the dog was used outside of  what it is legally intended for as of yet. 

Cops are pretty aware of what the procedure is to follow, particularly special units.

 

Edited February 21, 20205 yr by Geebrr

S’all good, man.

9 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

We are making some pretty big assumptions here. Until some actual informatiomation comes out staring otherwise, safe to assume the dog was being used in an authorized/legal way. 

I havent seen any actual report stating the dog was used outside of  what it is legally intended for as of yet. 

Cops are pretty aware of what the procedure is to follow, particularly special units.

 

You'd be shocked how often Cops make constitutional errors which can allow guilty individuals get off, it's one of the reasons the law system is perceived as being biased against the poor in the US.  Since errors by cops can get people off, good (read:expensive) lawyers are far more likely to discover and exploit those errors.

Poor people can't afford the lawyers who have the resources to find the errors.

 

My post was based on the news article which explicitly states that a border agent called ahead to the checkstop to pull their car over because his dog signalled when it passed by him.  Unless the news report is almost entirely incorrect about the sequence of events it surely sounds like these guys will have a shot at getting off (EVEN IF they consented to the search, if the reason they were asked was due to the dog signalling the entire chain of evidence could end up being tossed)