Officers in Canada have no right to search you, your vehicle or home because they smell Cannabis! If the police had a right to be in your house or vehicle, they would be kicking or forcing, not knocking or asking. Just as you can screen who comes in and out of your house, the same goes for police officers.

Citizens are under no obligation to allow police entry into their homes or to freely search your vehicle.

• Do Not Answer The Door or open your car door, have the Officer leave a business card and call them on the phone or roll the window down an inch to speak and deal with Officers from the vehicle.

• Do Not Open the Door or window all the way to Police Officers.

Receiving an anonymous tip or hearing a rumor about you is not enough evidence for all those lazy fat ass doughnut munching police to obtain a search warrant for your house or vehicle. Instead of taking the time to do a real investigation to determine if the rumor is fact or fiction, the Lazy good for nothing Officer will perform a "Knock and Talk", also known as a "Tap and Rap", on your front door.

With your vehicle they will try and get consent and staying quiet gives them permission for searches so speak up and say allowed;

                     **I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH!** 

These are Magical words and they will not work unless you insight them loudly and proudly.

Be prepared for the police to threaten you with all manner of retaliation including returning with a search warrant. If they had arrived with a warrant, they would have kicked your door instead of knocking at your door so they bully and outright lie you into giving up your rights.

Their intention is to trick you into opening the door of home or vehicle so they can claim an odor of marijuana is coming from inside your house or vehicle. Police will even lie and say they smell marijuana when they do not. Marijuana Smell is Not Enough to Warrant a Police Search and Illegal Search and Seizure, know your rights.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's ruling that the smell of burned marijuana is not enough to allow police to arrest someone and conduct a warrant-less search.

A Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling that police can't search a vehicle just because they smell burned marijuana will change how police conduct themselves, a lawyer says.
In December, lawyer Ron Piche successfully defended a La Loche man who was arrested after police found marijuana. However, he beat the charge when a provincial court judge ruled the arrest and search was unreasonable.
In a 35-page decision released on Dec. 14 2008, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal agreed and upheld the acquittal.
The case went to trial, and the judge found the arrest was a violation of Janvier's charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The scent of marijuana indicated a suspicion that it was smoked but didn't provide reasonable and probable grounds for an arrest or a search, the judge concluded and excluded the evidence. Janvier was declared not guilty.
"The smell alone can't constitute the grounds because the smell of burnt marijuana -- as opposed to raw marijuana -- gives an inference that the material is gone, it's dissipated into the atmosphere. So how can you say you're in possession of something that doesn't exist?"
The Crown appealed the verdict and the trial judge's decision was upheld. The outcome is encouraging because the province's highest court has taken a liberal interpretation of this law, Piche said.
Using your head and violating rights are two different things.
"One of the things that came out, is that the sense of smell is such a subjective thing, as well. Does the strength of the investigation depend on the odour? Does the investigation depend on how good that officer's sense of smell is? It just seemed all a little vague and arbitrary and I think this takes that out," Piche said. "They need more than the sense of smell."
Any property found or seized by means of a violation of section 8 can be excluded as evidence in a trial under section 24(2).
Generally speaking, the reasonable expectation of privacy focuses on the action being unreasonable on the basis that it violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Each individual possess the right to privacy, meaning that person has the right to be left alone by police unless there is a probable cause based on objective facts that the person is committing a crime.

Bless You and all those your heart touches

Covey WhiteGold