Legal Issues In Policing: Recent Episodes
LIIP
Legal Issues in Policing (LIIP) is the podcast blending the demands of the book with the rulings from the bench through the lens of the badge. Police Officers with a solid understanding of the law and their legal powers are more confident, competent and effective. Each episode will examine a legal issue in policing by reviewing current Canadian criminal case law from coast to coast to coast.
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Hayatibahar, 2026 ONCA 507, where police arrested two men for impaired driving following a fatal crash. The catch? There was only one driver. Was the arrest of both men for an offence that could only have been committed by one of them justified? And was a search of the accused's pockets at the hospital some two hours after his arrest reasonable? Or was the arrest unlawful resulting in s. 8 (unreasonable search) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention) Charter breaches?
Related lower court cases:
- 2022 ONSC 1281 (Charter application)
- 2022 ONSC 3692 (reasons for judgment)
- 2022 ONSC 5154 (reasons for sentence)
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Provincial Court decision R. v. Spice, 2026 SKPC 14, where a police officer searched a truck after arresting its driver for impaired. The officer testified he searched the truck — which was being impounded — as an incident to arrest to ensure there was nothing that would be dangerous to the tow truck driver. During the search, the officer saw a box of watermelon vodka. At trial, the accused wanted this observation, along with the certificate of analysis of his breath samples, excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. As for the vehicle search, the Crown submitted the officer was permitted to search the vehicle as an incident to arrest to discover evidence that may be used at the accused's trial. Was the search lawful as an incident to arrest? Could the Crown save the search by providing an objectively reasonable purpose for it that was not articulated by the officer? Listen carefully as this case underscores the importance of not only knowing your authorities but also the reasons for which they may be exercised.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses implied licence and the impact of a "NO TRESPASSING" sign. Does the posting of such a sign neuter the implied licence doctrine or does it merely state what the law already recognizes: a person entering onto another's property must have a legitimate reason for doing so? Doesn't implied licence provide members of the public, including police officers, the right to enter private property on legitimate business so long as they do not otherwise exceed the scope of the doctrine? What effect, if any, would a "NO TRESPASSING" sign — standing alone — have on this longstanding common law invitation to knock? Listen as Mike tries to make his case.
Cases referenced:
- R. v. Evans, [1996] 1 SCR 8
- R. v. Singer, 2026 SCC 6
- R. v. Skerratt, 2003 BCPC 456
- Larkin v. Bourque, 2026 NSSC 75
- Entick v. Carrington (1765), 2 Wils. K.B. 275
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Quebec Court of Appeal decision R. v. Paul, 2026 QCCA 552, where a police officer saw a known drug user acting suspiciously late at night. This person was nervous, evasive and appeared uncomfortable about police presence. After speaking with the man, police surreptitiously followed him, saw him approach a running vehicle with its headlights out, and watched as he appeared to interact with its driver. After noticing police, the man fled. Police then approached the vehicle and, using a flashlight, lit up its interior to find it occupied and observed an electronic scale with white residue on the floor. Police ordered the driver out of the vehicle to arrest him for drug possession and saw a baggie of cocaine on the seat where he was sitting. The driver was subsequently charged with PPT. Was the officer justified in approaching the vehicle? Was the use of a flashlight a search? Did the officer have enough grounds for an arrest? Did pulling back the arrestee's pants and underwear waistband when frisking him at the roadside amount to a "strip search"?
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Court of Appeal decision R. v. Dinh, 2026 BCCA 190, where police, acting on an anonymous Crime Stoppers' tip, followed a woman onto a ferry and later arrested her after she met with a man at a parking lot and exchanged bags. Police searched her car and found a kilogram of fentanyl hidden in the spare tire compartment of her trunk. The woman claimed her arrest was unlawful for lack of reasonable grounds and she wanted the evidence against her excluded. Was the officer able to weave his grounds for arrest to the requisite threshold? Or did the police breach the woman's s. 9 Charter right not to be arbitrarily detained? Listen and learn how the court decided the matter.
Related cases:
- R. v. Dinh, 2023 BCSC 2446
- R. v. Dinh, 2023 BCSC 2447
- R. v. Dinh, 2023 BCSC 2448
- R. v. Dinh, 2024 BCSC 109 (sentencing)
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision R. v. Singer, 2026 SKCA 52, an update to Episode 138 (R. v. Singer, 2026 SCC 8). In this case, Saskatchewan’s top court had to determine the outstanding ground of appeal it refused to address: whether the accused’s right to a fair trial was prejudiced because the arresting officer — prior to testifying — allegedly overheard defence counsel’s submissions taking issue with the grounds to make a breath demand and whether it was made forthwith. The Court of Appeal initially found it unnecessary to deal with this issue because it excluded crucial evidence, having concluded the police infringed the accused’s right to be free from unreasonable search by entering his driveway, opening the door of his truck and rousing him. But when the Supreme Court overturned Saskatchewan's opinion on the s. 8 breach, it sent the matter back for a resolution on the fair trial issue. Mike has the break down for you!
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Francois, 2025 MBCA 93 where police, on routine patrol in a high crime area, saw a man in a back alley operating a grinder while leaning over a BMX bike. After briefly questioning the man about the bike, an officer — an avid biker himself — found things just didn't add up, so he arrested the man thinking the bike was stolen or being stolen. A search of the man and his back-pack resulted in the discovery of a sawed-off .22 calibre rifle, ammunition and an angle grinder. Was the man detained prior to his arrest such that he was entitled to be advised of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel? Did police observations and officer experience with bikes render the man's arrest lawful? Listen carefully as to how the officer articulated his grounds as this street encounter played out. How the Court of Appeal saw the matter may assist you with a similar encounter.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Singer, 2026 SCC 8 where police, responding to a reported impaired driver, saw a truck matching the suspect vehicle description parked in a private driveway with its engine running and lights on. Officers walked up the driveway to the truck and saw a man sleeping or passed out in the driver's seat. The man was unresponsive to knocks at the window, so police opened the truck's door, woke the man up and observed signs of impairment. An ASD failure resulted in a ride to the police detachment, where the man refused a breath test. A trial judge found the police did nothing wrong, their actions were Charter compliant, and convicted the man of refusal. A Court of Appeal ruled otherwise and acquitted the man. Find out how the Supreme Court saw it when it weighed in. Was the conduct of the police in entering the driveway and approaching the truck consistent with the common law's implied licence doctrine? Was opening the truck's door lawful? This is an important case to understand because you use this doctrine on a regular basis, whether you realize it or not.
Related cases:
- R. v. Singer, 2023 SKCA 123
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court's 2025 Year in Review. How do last year's numbers stack up against previous years? And how often does the court disagree on the outcome of a case?
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Supreme Court decision R. v. Watroba, 2025 BCSC 815 where police saw a man, who they recognized as someone known to be involved in drug trafficking, standing outside a shopping mall with an easily accessible machete strapped across his back. This led to an investigative detention, a pat-down, the search of a satchel, the discovery of fentanyl and ultimately an arrest. The man was charged with possessing a weapon dangerous to the public peace and two counts of PPT. His lawyer, as one might expect, challenged every aspect of the police interaction on Charter grounds. Did the police have enough cause to detain? Was the pat-down legitimate? Was looking in the satchel justified on the basis of officer safety? And was the arrest lawful? Listen to learn what the judge ruled. It may just help you in a future case like it.
Related cases:
- R. v. Watroba, 2025 BCSC 2192
- R. v. Watroba, 2025 BCSC 2209
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the power to arrest, without warrant, an offender in breach of their conditional release — unescorted temporary absence, parole or statutory release — and how the authority under s. 137.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) came to be.
CCRA definitions (s. 99(1)):
day parole means the authority granted to an offender by the Board or a provincial parole board to be at large during the offender’s sentence in order to prepare the offender for full parole or statutory release, the conditions of which require the offender to return to a penitentiary, community-based residential facility, provincial correctional facility or other location each night or at another specified interval.
full parole means the authority granted to an offender by the Board or a provincial parole board to be at large during the offender’s sentence.
statutory release means release from imprisonment subject to supervision before the expiration of an offender’s sentence, to which an offender is entitled under section 127.
unescorted temporary absence means an unescorted temporary absence from penitentiary authorized under section 116.
CCRA Arrest Authorities:
Arrest without warrant
137(2) A peace officer who believes on reasonable grounds that a warrant is in force under this Part or under the authority of a provincial parole board for the apprehension of a person may arrest the person without warrant and remand the person in custody.
Arrest without warrant — breach of conditions
137.1 A peace officer may arrest without warrant an offender who has committed a breach of a condition of their parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence, or whom the peace officer finds committing such a breach, unless the peace officer
(a) believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest may be satisfied without arresting the person, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to
(i) establish the identity of the person, or
(ii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the breach; and
(b) does not believe on reasonable grounds that the person will fail to report to their parole supervisor in order to be dealt with according to law if the peace officer does not arrest the person.
Additional References:
Arrest Without Warrant: Handbook for Front-line Peace Officers 2013
R. v. Loewen, 2018 SKCA 69 (lower court decision 2015 SKPC 12)
Video — Parole: Contributing to Public Safety
2023 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview (July 2025)
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike offers a Christmas message for all law enforcement officers.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Carignan, 2025 SCC 43 where a police officer arrested a man under s. 495 of the Criminal Code. At trial, in the Court of Quebec, the man wanted a voir dire held to determine the lawfulness of his arrest because — he claimed — the police did not comply with s. 495(2) and he sought the exclusion of an incriminating statement he made to police under s. 24(2) of the Charter. But the judge refused to hold a voir dire, concluding s. 495(3) rendered an arrest that did not comply with s. 495(2) lawful in a criminal proceeding, including one in which the arrestee was on trial. The man was convicted of sexual assault and he was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment and placed on probation for a period of two years. He appealed to Quebec's highest court, which ruled the trial judge erred. In its view, s. 495(3) did not prevent an accused from challenging the legality of their arrest. By refusing to hold a voir dire, the judge deprived the man of the opportunity to allege and establish non-compliance with s. 495(2). The man's appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered. The Crown then appealed the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision to Canada's top court, where all nine judges heard the matter and rendered an unanimous decision. Listen to learn what every law enforcement officer should know about the effect non compliance with s. 495(2) has on the lawfulness of an arrest made under s. 495(1) and its interplay with s. 495(3).
Criminal Code power of arrest:
495 (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant
(a) a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence
(b) a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence; or
(c) a person in respect of whom he has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant of arrest or committal, in any form set out in Part XXVIII in relation thereto, is in force within the territorial jurisdiction in which the person is found.
Limitation
(2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for
(a) an indictable offence mentioned in section 553,
(b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction, or
(c) an offence punishable on summary conviction,
in any case where
(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to
(i) establish the identity of the person,
(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or
(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence,
may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and
(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.
Consequences of arrest without warrant
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a peace officer acting under subsection (1) is deemed to be acting lawfully and in the execution of his duty for the purposes of
(a) any proceedings under this or any other Act of Parliament; and
(b) any other proceedings, unless in any such proceedings it is alleged and established by the person making the allegation that the peace officer did not comply with the requirements of subsection (2).
Other provisions mentioned in the podcast: ss. 493, 497, 498, 503, 553.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Alberta Court of Appeal decision R. v. Ouellette, 2025 ABCA 340 where a police officer accompanied an impaired driving suspect in the rear of an ambulance. While enroute to the hospital, the officer overheard the EMT ask the driver questions about drug and alcohol consumption and recorded her responses in his notebook. The officer then used this information in a warrant to seize the driver's medically taken blood samples. Did the police breach s. 8 of the Charter by riding in the ambulance and taking notes of what the driver said to the EMT about her consumption of alcohol and drugs? A trial judge thought so, as did a summary conviction appeal judge. Listen to learn what a three judge panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal had to say when it weighed in.
Summary conviction appeal decision. (2023 ABKB 342)
Other references:
- R. v. Singh, 2024 ONCA 66
- R. v. S.S., 2023 ONCA 130
Hon. John Joseph Connolly
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Dalia, 2025 ONCA 772 where police delayed providing an arrestee access to counsel until a house — the target of a search warrant — was secured. A sergeant expected an officer would learn via police radio when the home was secure and then facilitate access to a lawyer, while the officer was expecting further instruction from the sergeant before doing so. This miscommunication resulted in a s. 10(b) Charter breach. Listen and learn how you might avoid a similar situation.
s. 10(b) Charter — "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention … to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right."
Sentencing decision. (2023 ONSC 2114)
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Jackson, 2025 ONCA 717 where police — after witnessing a suspected drug deal — stopped a vehicle, claiming a passenger was not wearing his seat belt. During the interaction, police saw cannabis shake (green specs and flakes) on the dashboard, smelled fresh marihuana and noticed an air freshener in the vehicle. When the man was about to be searched under Ontario's Cannabis Control Act, he fled, only to be chased down and arrested. A search incident to arrest turned up two ounces of fentanyl in his possession and other drugs in the vehicle. When this went to court the man alleged the police used the seatbelt infraction as a false pretext to arbitrarily detain him and search for drugs, and he wanted the evidence excluded. Was the traffic stop lawful? Or did the police use their Highway Traffic Act authority as a ruse — a false flag — to pull the vehicle over and search it? What you might learn may help you with future stops where you are suspicious of a vehicle's occupants while at the same time witness a traffic related infraction.
Sentencing reasons (R. v. Jackson, 2024 ONSC 2402).
Ontario's Highway Traffic Act (HTA)
s. 216(1) HTA:
A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a vehicle, other than a bicycle, to stop and the driver of a vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop.
s. 106(3) HTA:
Every person who is at least 16 years old and is a passenger in a motor vehicle on a highway shall, (a) occupy a seating position for which a seat belt assembly has been provided; and (b) wear the complete seat belt assembly as required by subsection (5).
Ontario's Cannabis Control Act (CCA)
s. 12(1) CCA:
No person shall drive or have the care or control of a vehicle or boat, whether or not it is in motion, while any cannabis is contained in the vehicle or boat.
s. 12(2) CCA:
Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to cannabis that, (a) is in its original packaging and has not been opened; or (b) is packed in baggage that is fastened closed or is not otherwise readily available to any person in the vehicle or boat.
s. 12(3) CCA:
A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that cannabis is being contained in a vehicle or boat in contravention of subsection (1) may at any time, without a warrant, enter and search the vehicle or boat and search any person found in it.
Other reference:
- R. v. Kaddoura, 2009 BCCA 113.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Samuels, 2025 ONCA 736 where police arrested a man for drug trafficking and searched him at the scene incident to arrest by lifting his shirt and removing a bag of drugs sticking out from his underwear waistband. The man's sweatpants were then lowered to his knees, exposing a pair of jeans underneath, so officer's could search his pockets. Police found a trove or drugs and drug-related evidence. Did these searches amount to a "strip search" such that special rules applied? Or were they more akin to a pat-down or frisk search, requiring no additional justification? Listen to learn on which side of this issue Ontario's top court fell?
References:
- Lower court ruling (R. v. Samuels, 2023 ONCJ 596).
- Sentencing decision (R. v. Samuels, 2023 ONCJ 597).
- R. v. Choi, 2021 BCCA 410.
- R. v. Golden, 2001 SCC 83.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Wilson, 2025 SCC 32 where police arrested people present at a drug overdose after someone called 9-1-1 for emergency medical assistance. A search incident to arrest revealed modified handguns, firearm parts and ammunition inside a nearby vehicle. Was the arrest lawful? Or did the amendments made to the CDSA under the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act exempt a person present at the overdose not only from a charge or conviction for simple possession — as the text expressly provides — but also from arrest? If the arrest was unlawful, what should happen to the evidence?
- Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (2023 SKCA 106)
- Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act video
- S.O.S.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision R. v. Brabant, 2025 SKCA 101 where police arrested a man without reasonable grounds to do so. When the man was searched, police found meth in his pocket and a sawed-off rifle under his sweater. Although the trial judge found Charter breaches — arbitrary detention and unreasonable search — the evidence was nevertheless admitted because the police could have detained the man and patted him down for safety and discovered the evidence anyway. Did the trial judge properly consider discoverability of the evidence in his s. 24(2) analysis? Or should the evidence have been excluded? Listen and find out how Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal felt about the trial judge’s ruling.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Ngo, 2025 ONCA 685 where police conducted a no-knock entry when executing a search warrant? Was departing from the knock-and-announce rule justified in the circumstances? Or did police action render the manner of search unreasonable?
Lower court decision (R. v. Ngo, 2022 ONSC 3700)
Sentencing decision (R. v. Ngo, 2023 ONSC 282)
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike looks back to the basics of search and seizure law by using the acronym CLEW — Consent | Lawful Exception | Warrant — that you can use to think about this important investigative tool.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Supreme Court decision R. v. Bateman, 2025 BCSC 1780 where police responded to an abandoned 911 call. Suspecting a possible domestic, an officer patted-down a man who answered the door at the residence. After feeling something “hard” and “firm” in the man’s hoodie pocket, the officer reached in and removed the object, subsequently discovering it to be cocaine wrapped in a Ziplock baggie. Was the initial pat down lawful and, if so, was reaching into the pocket and removing the object for its inspection justified? Did either — or both — of these police actions exceed what was permitted in the circumstances? Listen and find out how a judge ruled on the matter.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Alberta Court of Appeal decision R. v. Araya,2025 ABCA 61 where police mistakenly arrested the wrong man for robbery. When the man was searched, police found a loaded handgun in the satchel he was carrying. Did the mistaken identity render the arrest unlawful? Or did the officer still have reasonable grounds for arrest even though it turned out he arrested the wrong person? Find out what the appeal court ruled on this matter and other issues such as (1) whether an imminent threat was required before police could search the satchel and (2) whether delaying access to counsel before a search warrant could be executed was justified.
Other related cases:
- R. v. Araya, 2022 ABCJ 261 (voir dire)
- R. v. Araya, 2023 ABCJ 174 (decision)
- R. v. Araya — Supreme Court of Canada leave dismissal
- R. v. Lugela, 2023 ABCJ 176 (voir dire)
- R. v. Lugela, 2023 ABCJ 288 (decision)
- R. v. Lugela, 2024 ABCJ 74 (sentencing)
- R. v. Lugela, 2025 ABCA 194 (appeal)
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision R. v. Breau, 2025 NBCA 95 where police arrested a woman for drug trafficking. When police searched the vehicle she was driving, drugs — including methamphetamine, MDMA, and cocaine — along with other evidence was discovered. The woman argued the police did not have sufficient grounds to arrest her, rendering her detention arbitrary — a s. 9 Charter breach. A trial judge upheld the arrest, but she appealed to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. Find out what the appeal court ruled when it weighed in on the matter.
cumulative — increased in quantity, degree, or force by successive additions.
commonsensical — demonstrating a practical and sensible perception of the situation or facts.
contextual — depending on or relating to the circumstances that form the setting of an event.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses Statistics Canada's most recent crime data from 2024 and once again highlights the increase of assaults against peace officers.
Links
- Statistics Canada Data by Policing District/Zone
- Police Reported Crime in Canada, 2024 (CSI) infographic
- Understanding and Using the Crime Severity Index
- Police-reported Information Hub: Selected Crime Indicators
- Police-reported Information Hub: Criminal Violations
- Police-reported Information Hub: Geographic Crime Comparisons
- Police-reported Information Hub: Homicide in Canada
- Incident-based crime statistics, by detailed violations, Canada, provinces, territories, Census Metropolitan Areas and Canadian Forces Military Police
- Crime severity index and weighted clearance rates, Canada, provinces, territories and Census Metropolitan Areas
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision R. v. Hoffman, 2025 SKCA 75 where police opened the gate to a waist high, fenced yard and entered to arrest a man seen standing in it. When the officer advised the man that he was under arrest, the man turned and ran into the residence, followed by police. A physical altercation occurred leading to charges of assaulting a peace officer, resisting arrest and damaging a police vehicle. Was the entry into the fenced yard to arrest the man lawful or were the police trespassers? Was a Feeney warrant required to enter the dwelling house or did the doctrine of fresh pursuit apply?
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Thompson, 2025 ONCA 500 where a man was arrested in relation to a serious drug investigation and later strip searched after being booked into cells. Police delayed advising the man of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel for 20 minutes following his arrest, and did not re-advise him of his right to a lawyer before conducting the strip search many hours later and after he had already spoken to duty counsel. Was the 20 minute delay justified and were the police required to provide a second s. 10(b) advisement before conducting the strip search incident to arrest? What you might learn may change the way you do business!
Additional cases referenced:
- R. v. Thompson, 2022 ONSC 6173
- R. v. West, 2020 BCSC 1780
- R. v. Kikiantonis, 2025 ONCJ 399
- Toronto Police Policy — 01-02 Search of Persons
- R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35
- R. v. Golden, 2001 SCC 83
- R. v. Suberu, 2004 SCC 33
- R. v. Ali, 2022 SCC 1
- R. v. Taylor, 2014 SCC 50
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
TRIGGER WARNING: This episode contains graphic content, including violence, suicide and death which may shock, offend or upset.
In this episode, Mike discusses examples of recently released reports from police civilian oversight agencies and the time it takes to conclude some of these investigations.
Cases referenced:
- Saskatchewan — SIRT Concludes Investigation into in Custody Death in Regina
- BC — July 10, 2022 - Williams Lake - Death (2022-167)
- BC — November 19, 2023 - Dawson Creek - Death (2023-338)
- Alberta — Fatal Edmonton Police Shooting - April 15, 2025
- Alberta — Fatal Calgary Police Shooting - February 19, 2025
- Ontario — SIU Director’s Report - Case # 25-TCD-082
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Miller, 2025 MBCA 48 where police — acting on an informer’s tip — arrested a man after stopping a taxi he was riding in. When the man was searched, police found cash, meth and two cellphones. Did the police sufficiently CORROBORATE the information? Was it enough for the what, when and where of the tip to be confirmed but not the criminal aspect related to it? Or should the police have done more investigation before making the arrest?
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Supreme Court decision R. v. Dodd, 2025 BCSC 591 where police executed a search warrant at an apartment located in a 50 unit building. The warrant did not expressly authorize the police to move through the common areas inside the building to get to the door of the apartment, nor was permission sought from building management or another resident to enter. Did the police conduct amount to an unlawful search — thereby breaching the accused’s s. 8 Charter right — when they walked through the lobby, stairwell and hallway to arrive at the target suite’s door to execute the warrant? What the judge ruled might shock you!
s. 24(2) ruling (2025 BCSC 592)
Other cases mentioned: R. v. White, 2015 ONCA 508; R. v. Webster, 2015 BCCA 286; R. v. Unrau, 2025 ABCA 239; R. v. Evans, [1996] 1 SCR 8.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision Shanthakumar Estate v. Canada Border Services Agency, 2025 ONCA 422 where a police officer continued an arrest made by CBSA of two seniors for breaching an undertaking condition based on a CPIC entry. Unfortunately, the charge related to the undertaking had been stayed but the CPIC entry had not been updated. It was only later learned, after the seniors had been transported to jail, that the undertaking had been vacated and the conditions were no longer in effect. The seniors — now plaintiffs in a civil action — sued the RCMP, CBSA & the police for negligence and arbitrary detention (under s. 9 of the Charter). Did the seniors have a case? Were their arrests unlawful? Did the police breach the standard of care expected of a reasonable officer in similar circumstances? Learning answers to these questions may help you with your decision making in like situations.
Lower court ruling (2023 ONSC 3180).
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike uses R. v. Cameron, 2025 ONSC 2621 as a springboard to take a deep dive into the topic of inventory searches. In Cameron, the police were found to be using the inventory search authority as a pretext for a criminal investigation tainted by racial bias. Listen to learn some tips about how you can Charter-proof your conduct in this area.
Other cases referenced: Hunter v. Southam, [1984] 2 SCR 145; R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 SCR 51; R. v. Nicolosi, (1998) 127 C.C.C. (3d) 176; R. v. Wint, 2009 ONCA 52 leave to appeal refused [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 164; R. v. Strilec, 2010 BCCA 198; R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24; R. v. Harflett, 2016 ONCA 248; R. v. Dunkley, 2016 ONCA 597; R. v. Ellis, 2016 ONCA 598; R. v. Cuff, 2018 ONCA 276; R. v. Russell, 2018 BCCA 330; R. v. Knott, 2019 MBCA 97 leave to appeal refused 2020 CanLII 27701 (SCC); R. v. Meyers, 2022 NSCA 69; R. v. Arsenault, 2023 NSCA 10; R. v. Morrison, 2024 NBCA 35; R. v. Donovan, 2024 BCCA 213; R. v. Cooper, 2016 BCPC 259; R. v. Opikokew, 2022 SKPC 14; R. v. Russell, 2017 BCPC 60.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Miller, 2025 MBCA 48 where police arrested a man after receiving a tip from a confidential informer, finding drugs and cash in his possession. The question to ponder was whether or not the police had the necessary grounds to make the arrest using the 3 C's — Was the information COMPELLING? Was the source CREDIBLE? And was the information CORROBORATED? Listen to learn how the Court of Appeal applied the test. You might just want to follow along to bolster your understanding in this area of law.
Other case mentioned in the podcast upholding mandatory breath testing — R. v. Wright, 2025 SKCA 52.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Asante, 2025 ONCA 387 where police arrested a man, finding cocaine, meth and fentanyl in the vehicle he was driving. Charged with three counts of PPT, the issue for the trial judge was to first determine whether the police had sufficient grounds to make the arrest. Find out what the Court of Appeal had to say about the trial judge's ruling. You might also learn a thing or two to help you in the future with making your own arrest decisions.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike highlights two topics:
-
The King delivering the Speech from the Throne.
-
2024-2025 Public Opinion Research on Privacy Issues.
Find out what the King said about hiring more RCMP officers and what a survey prepared for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada said about people trusting law enforcement with their private information.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Brown, 2024 ONCA 763 where police postponed providing an arrestee access to counsel for about an hour and a half until he was transported to the police station. Was this delay justified in the circumstances? Does a "calm" and under control situation necessarily equate to a "safe" one? What are a police officer's obligations under s. 10(b) of the Charter?
s. 10(b) Charter — "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention … to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right."
Supreme Court of Canada dismissal of leave application.
Trial decision on s. 10(b) application. (2022 ONCJ 678)
Decision on sentence. (2022 ONCJ 679)
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike highlights National Police Week (May 11-17, 2025) and discusses the Ontario Court of Justice decision R. v. Vernaza-Vinces, 2025 ONCJ 257 where police chased a man on foot until he entered a vehicle and fled. Even though the police never pursued the man's vehicle in a police car, the court had to determine whether a charge of flight from police under s. 320.17 of the Criminal Code applied. Or was an essential element of the crime a requirement that the police themselves be pursuing in a motor vehicle?
Order of Merit of the Police Forces Ceremony.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Provincial Court decision R. v. Wiebe, 2025 MBPC 35 where the police installed a fixed pole camera in an alley accessible to the public to video record — for a month — the back lane and part of the concrete approach of a detached garage. Information noted by the police included the makes, models and licence plates of vehicles attending the garage; the time of day of the comings and goings; people who attended, who they were attending with, the type of clothing worn, and characteristics such as hair style, facial hair and tattoos. Did the warrantless use of the pole camera itself amount to a Charter search such that s. 8 was engaged?
Winnipeg Police Service Press Release.
R. v. Desylva sentencing update (2025 ABKB 262).
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Court of Appeal decision R. v. Jaramillo, 2025 BCCA 77 where police brought a K9 along to arrest a man on an outstanding aggravated assault warrant. The dog never bit or touched the man, but barked. The man — a convicted criminal — said he was scared during the arrest. The judge found the use of the K9 breached the man’s s. 7 Charter right to “life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” and reduced his sentence by 11 months to account for this Charter violation. When the Crown appealed the ruling, BC’s top court weighed in on the matter. Did the dog display violate s. 7 or was the judge way off-base?
Decision on Sentence (2024 BCPC 263)
Decision on Sentence in a different matter (2021 BCPC 225)
BC Provincial Policing Standard 1.4 Principles for Standards for Police Service Dogs
BC Provincial Policing Standard 1.4.1 Police Service Dogs — General Requirements
BC Provincial Policing Standard 1.4.1 Police Service Dogs — Threshold and Circumstances of Police Dog Use
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Provincial Court decision R. v. Bajwa, 2025 BCPC 43 where police monitored and recorded — by video surveillance — a man using the toilet in cells for less than a minute. Although no genitalia was observed, his buttocks and thighs were videoed but there was no blurring, pixilation or blacking out of his toilet use, nor was he offered a privacy gown or shield. Did this videoing amount to an intrusion into the man’s privacy such that his right under s. 8 of the Charter — to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure — was breached? If yes, were the remedies of a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence in order?
Decision on remedy (2025 BCPC 44)
BC Provincial Policing Standard 4.1.1 Video Surveillance Recording in Police Buildings
Toronto Police Service Policy — Privacy Shields
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike celebrates the Charter’s 43rd birthday! On April 17, 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. Listen to learn about some of the early discussion on the remedy provisions, from s. 26 to s. 24 to s. 24(1) and (2).
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Alberta Court of King's Bench decision R. v. Tierney, 2025 ABKB 223 where police delayed providing a man access to counsel for more than 16 hours after his arrest, claiming it was justified while seeking a search warrant for fear evidence might be destroyed. The police also failed to bring the man before a justice, waiting about 33 hours to do so. How did the judge feel about these delays after Crown conceded Charter breaches. Was evidence supporting serious charges excluded? This case provides a good summary of the case law and things a police officer needs to think about if delaying access to counsel.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
TRIGGER WARNING: This episode contains graphic content, including suicide, which may shock, offend or upset.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada's 2024 Year in Review. How do last year's stats stack up against previous years? How long does it take the court to decide a matter? And how often is the court split on the outcome of a case?
The Supreme Court of Canada Marks 150 Years of Service to Canadians
Royal Canadian Mint Supreme Court of Canada Commemorative Circulation Coin
Mike also updates two IIO cases.
IIO 2023-248: Mackenzie RCMP — Public Report
IIO 2022-249: Abbotsford Police — Information Bulletin
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses BC’s Independent Investigations Office (IIO) and referrals to Crown Counsel. What can be learned from the data? How long does it take for the IIO to conduct an investigation forwarded for prosecution? How long does it take before a decision on charges is made? And how many convictions have been obtained after trial? The answers may (or may not) surprise you!
IIO Annual Report 2023-2024
IIO Annual Report 2022-2023
2024-160: Saanich Police
2021-171: Vernon RCMP — Crown's Clear Statement
2020-110: Williams Lake RCMP
2024-265: Vancouver Transit Police
2024-223: Abbotsford Police
2024-156: Nanaimo RCMP
2016-051: Prince George RCMP — trial judgement acquittal
BCPS Media & Clear Statement — Stay of proceedings relating to charges arising out of the death of Dale Culver
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Donawa, 2025 SCC 10 where police found a handgun in a driver’s fanny pack during a roadside stop. The police sent the handgun for testing, but did not send the magazine or the ammunition found in it. A trial judge ruled the handgun was NOT a firearm — as defined under s. 2 of the Criminal Code — because it required special expertise, considerable time, and a part not readily available to make it operable. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision, finding the gun was an operable firearm because it was capable of firing when loaded. The Supreme Court of Canada was then asked to weigh in. Listen and find out what their take on the issue was.
Criminal Code (s. 2):
"firearm means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm."
Lower court ruling
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses a crime prevention project he spearheaded called “OPERATION LODESTAR”, meaning one who serves as a guide or model. As part of this initiative, a poster was released depicting a young boy dressed up like a gangster with the caption — “When I grow up I want to be just like daddy. Kids live what they learn. Be the parent your child needs.” The campaign was both criticized and commended. Listen how the project was started and maybe you can use some of what you learn.
Includes audio from Operation Lodestar: Parenting Matters video.
More resources including posters & Parenting Matters video link.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Kostuk, 2025 ONCA 195 where police arrested a man in the stabbing death of his friend. The man — who claimed he was suffering from schizophrenia and had not taken his medication — argued the police breached his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel because they (1) took no steps to address his mental health issues before he spoke with his lawyer and (2) did not give him another opportunity to speak with his lawyer after he had taken his medication. Were the police required to take the man to the hospital as he requested? Was a second advisement about the right to counsel required after the man received his medication? What is the test for assessing cognitive capacity in the s. 10(b) context? And just how did the Court of Appeal address these questions.
Lower court ruling
Lower court sentencing
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Plummer, 2011 ONCA 350 where police saw a man seated in a vehicle illegally parked near an apartment door where people would buy drugs. As the police passed by, the man appeared shocked or surprised and moved forward while slouching down as if to conceal something. When the man provided his name, the police recognized him as being associated to an officer safety alert describing him as possibly armed with a handgun. The man was asked to exit the vehicle and — when patted down — police found he was wearing a bullet proof vest. As police moved in to search the car, the man fled. Police discovered a loaded handgun in an overnight bag that was near where the man had been sitting. Was the man’s detention lawful? And, if he had standing to challenge the searches, was the vehicle and bag search valid as an incident to investigative detention? Or is this common law power limited only to a pat-down of the detainee?
Lower court ruling
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision R. v. Harpold, 2024 SKCA 26, where a plain clothed police officer saw a man masturbating in his car in the parking lot of a mall as she walked by it and looked through the driver’s window. When this went to trial, the man argued his vehicle was not a “public place" for the purpose of an indecent act charge. Is a private motor vehicle parked in a public place itself a public place for the purpose of the “indecent act” provision? Does the express or implied “access” as of right or by invitation required in the meaning of “public place” require physical access, or is visual access sufficient? Listen to find out what Saskatchewan’s top court ruled.
Regina Police Service press release
Edmonton Service press release
R. v. Desylva, 2025 ABKB 130
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Jir, 2010 BCCA 497 where a police officer, after acting on an anonymous tip, stopped a motorist and immediately arrested him. When police searched the trunk of his car without a warrant, 120,000 ecstasy tablets were discovered. Did the police have enough grounds to arrest the man based on the anonymous tip? Or was more needed? Mike looks at these questions and what factors you can use to assess the reliability of information provided by a tipster.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike again discusses recent survey results from Statistics Canada about the amount of confidence Canadians had in various institutions, including the school system, media, parliament, the justice system and courts, and the police. Just how did the compare to these other institutions? Check out the results for yourself.
Confidence in institutions, by gender and other selected sociodemographic characteristics
Confidence in institutions, by gender and province
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Alberta Court of King’s Bench decision R. v. Desylva, 2025 ABKB 36 where a police officer was shot at by a man being pursued. When the man’s car got stuck in the snow, the officer unloaded 25 rounds at the man as his car spun out. The man fled on foot, only to be located laying in the snow suffering from serious gun shot wounds to his head and neck area. The man was transported to hospital and his clothing, which had been removed and bagged by hospital staff, was seized and searched some 11 hours after arrest. Items police found in the man’s clothing included a large sum of cash and 40 grams of cocaine. This evidence was crucial to drug charges and could explain the reasons or motive for the man’s evasion and flight from police. Did the time span of 11 hours between arrest and search render it outside the scope of the search incident to arrest doctrine? Or could the police offer a reasonable explanation for the delay?
ASIRT Investigative Report
Video of shooting
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Pietz, 2025 MBCA 5 where police arrested a man in relation to the presumed death of another. After unsuccessfully trying to obtain a confession from the man, police took him for a lengthy drive in an effort to locate the victim’s body. During the ride, police kept the man in handcuffs, used offensive and profane language, and did not provide him with shoes, a jacket or a blanket while he was outside the police vehicle in chilly weather. Did the man’s removal from police headquarters in the middle of the night without his consent — along with the conditions of the ride — render the detention arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter? And was an additional s. 10(b) advisement about the right to consult counsel required for this procedure? Listen now and learn a little — or a lot!
Lower court ruling
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses R. v. Grassing, 2025 SKCA 1 where police where asked by a probation officer to do a curfew check and possibly search the residence of a man on a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO). The CSO had two search conditions, both requiring a reasonable suspicion the man was breaching a condition of his CSO before police could search. When the police searched the man’s apartment, they found methamphetamine and a firearm. A trial judge found the probation officer’s request was enough by itself to justify the search, the evidence was admitted at trial, and the man was convicted of drug and weapons offences. But how did the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal feel about the matter? Was the probation officer’s request enough or was more required? And if more was required, did the facts within police awareness meet the reasonable suspicion standard? Or did the search breach the man’s s. 8 Charter right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure?
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses R. v. Alexander, 2025 ONSC 57 where police tried to stop a vehicle for a traffic related reason. The driver — along with the vehicle’s passenger — fled from the attempted stop and then ran from the vehicle only to be apprehended nearby after a foot chase. The police searched the car and later — using a K9 — found a loaded handgun under a bush not far from where the driver was arrested. The defence lawyer alleged police action was tainted by racial profiling — the vehicle had been targeted because its occupants were young, black males driving late at night. Was this a valid claim? Was searching the vehicle incident to arrest for the offence of flight from police justified? Or did searching it exceed the scope of the common law power?
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Pearson, 2017 ONCA 389 where a police officer, after stopping a motorist, arrested him for drug impaired driving. Police opened the trunk and searched a knapsack found in it, discovering two shotgun shells, which the officer seized. As it turned out, the driver was later charged with two murders, one occurring the day before the traffic stop and another about two weeks later. The shells found in the knapsack were similar in composition to the ones used to commit the murders and Crown wanted to tender them as evidence at the murder trials. But was their discovery lawful? Was opening the trunk and searching the knapsack as an incident to the drug impaired driving arrest valid? Or did it exceed the scope of the common law power?
Lower court ruling
Supreme Court of Canada leave dismissal
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Stonefish, 2019 ONCA 914 where a police officer, after stopping a motorist for an equipment violation, smelled the odour of burnt marihauana and saw a green leafy substance in the car’s console. The motorist was then arrested for possessing a controlled substance and police opened the car’s hood to discover a stash of cocaine in a Ziploc bag valued at between $11,000 — $18,000 on the street. Was opening the car’s hood lawful as an incident to the drug arrest for possession of this small amount of marihuana? Or did it exceed the scope of the common law power? Mike looks at these and other questions.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses 'Christmas carding', a crime prevention tactic initiated several years ago. Listen how the project — dubbed OPERATION RESOLUTION — was started and how the media portrayed it. All the best to LIIP listeners this holiday season. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Homicide trends in Canada, 2023
AbbyPD Christmas Card
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Campbell, 2024 SCC 42 where police arrested a known drug dealer and lawfully seized his cellphone. After the arrest, four text messages lit up the locked cellphone screen and appeared to offer a sale of drugs, possibly laced with fentanyl. Without a warrant, the police engaged in a conversation with the sender of the texts by impersonating the drug dealer and — in the process — orchestrated a meet to purchase drugs. When the accused came to the drug dealer’s apartment, he was arrested and found in possession of heroin laced with fentanyl. Was the conduct of the police by engaging in the text conversation a search for Charter purposes? If it was a search, could the police lawfully do what they did? Was the situation facing the police urgent enough to trigger exigent circumstances? Was a Part VI authorization under the Criminal Code required? Did the search incident to arrest doctrine apply?
Ontario Court of Appeal ruling
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision R. v. Gallant, 2024 NBCA 135 where a police officer applied for and received a warrant to seize and analyze blood samples taken by hospital staff for medical purposes. The affiant’s ITO referenced police reports from two other officers as a basis for their reasonable grounds to support the warrant. This included (1) the circumstances surrounding a serious accident as reported to an officer by another driver and (2) the very strong odour of alcohol coming from the accused’s breath as detected by an officer accompanying him in the back of an ambulance on the way to the hospital. Did the affiant’s grounds supply a sufficient basis for the search warrant? And what sort of test does the reviewing judge use in deciding whether the authorizing judge could have issued the warrant?
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision R. v. Kusi, 2024 ONSC 6248 where an officer searched a vehicle before towing it as being “apparently abandoned” under Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act. After removing the cover of what turned out to be the vehicle’s electrical fuse box, the officer discovered fentanyl. Was this a valid inventory search? Or did it exceed the scope and was it conducted in an unreasonable manner as claimed by the defence?
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Justice decision R. v. Hoggar, 2024 ONCJ 546 where an officer found drugs, a loaded handgun and extended magazines after arresting a man for PPT, towing his vehicle to a private garage and searching more than an hour later, all while using a K9 to sniff it and dismantling its door panels. No exigent circumstances existed nor did the officer obtain a search warrant. Did the delay and manner in which the warrantless search incident to arrest was conducted render it unlawful? Or was there some reasonable basis for the officer to do what he did?
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Sabiston, 2024 SCC 33 where police arrested a known gang member for possessing stolen property. He was seen walking in a high gang crime area while wearing a bullet-proof vest that looked just like the type worn by police. After searching the man, a sawed-off shotgun was found in his backpack. Despite concluding the arrest was unlawful and police conduct breached s. 8 (unreasonable search or seizure) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention) of the Charter, the trial judge found the police had enough suspicion to detain the man and could have searched him for safety anyway. Since the gun was discoverable through an otherwise lawful means (although not exercised), the evidence was admissible under s. 24(2) and the man was convicted of several weapon related offences. Listen to learn how Canada’s top court felt about all of this?
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Court of Quebec decision R. v. Hennigar, 2024 QCCQ 4849 where police entered an apartment on the invite of a co-habitant to recover a loaded pistol she had found while cleaning a closet. Could the co-resident validly consent to the police entry in the accused's absence? Could the police conduct also be justified as a safety search? Or was a warrant required? Listen for the answers to these and other questions as they may help inform your future decision making.
Upcoming Training Seminars
Officer Safety & The Charter — October 23, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Detention, Arrest & Search — November 13, 2025 — 9 am to 3 pm — JIBC
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Buffong, 2024 ONCA 660 where police received a tip from a confidential informer that an individual would be at a Thunder Bay bus station — with money and a handgun — intending on travelling to Toronto. When police went to the bus station, they saw a man matching the description provided by the tipster and took steps to detain him. When an officer reached out to pat the man down, he felt something metal in a satchel the man was wearing. The satchel was removed from the man and opened, leading to the discovery of a loaded pistol and bundles of cash. Was the man's detention lawful even though the credibility of the tipster was unknown? Was the search of the satchel — after it had been removed from the man — properly conducted within the scope of a safety search incident to investigative detention? Listen for the answers to these and other questions that arose during this case.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. McKenzie, 2022 MBCA 3 where a man was seen running while clenching the left side of his body with his elbow. When the officer called out to the man, the officer recognized him as a gang member. The man reacted by picking up his pace, leading the officer to suspect the man might have a weapon concealed between his left arm and his body. After a short foot pursuit, the officer pinned the man against a house and opened his fanny pack, seeing a handgun — which turned out to be loaded and stolen. Drugs and cash were also found in the man's jacket. Was the man's initial detention for a weapon's offence lawful? Was opening the fanny pack — even before patting it down — reasonable? And what if the officer had more than one reason for the search — to look for drugs or a weapon? Would a dual purpose render what the officer did in this case unreasonable?
Trial court ruling
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Khandakar, 2024 ONCA 620 where the driver of a vehicle changed their mind and wanted to provide an ASD breath sample after being arrested for refusing to do so. Just when does an unequivocal refusal to provide an ASD sample constitute the actus reus for a refusal charge? How much time does a driver have to change their mind?
Criminal Code provisions:
- s. 320.15 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, knowing that a demand has been made, fails or refuses to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a demand made under section 320.27 or 320.28.
- s. 320.27 (1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol ... in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a conveyance, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person ... (b) to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose ...
Trial court ruling
First level appeal ruling
BC's Alco-Sensor FST Operator's Manual
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses Statistics Canada's most recent crime data and highlights the increase of assaults against peace officers.
Links
- Statistics Canada Data by Policing District/Zone
- Police Reported Crime in Canada, 2023 (CSI) infographic
- Understanding and Using the Crime Severity Index
- Police-reported Information Hub: Selected Crime Indicators
- Police-reported Information Hub: Criminal Violations
- Police-reported Information Hub: Geographic Crime Comparisons
- Police-reported Information Hub: Homicide in Canada
- Incident-based crime statistics, by detailed violations, Canada, provinces, territories, Census Metropolitan Areas and Canadian Forces Military Police
- Crime severity index and weighted clearance rates, Canada, provinces, territories and Census Metropolitan Areas
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Attard, 2024 ONCA 616 where police — investigating a serious motor vehicle collision — seized the accused’s car, removed its event data recorder (EDR) and extracted the data, all without judicial authorization or consent. Was this warrantless conduct lawful? Could the data be used in court at the accused’s trial on a charge of dangerous driving causing bodily harm? The trial judge didn’t think so. Listen to find out what the Ontario Court of Appeal had to say when it weighed in on the matter.
Trial court Charter ruling
Trial court acquittal
R. v. Fedan, 2016 BCCA 26
R. v. Major, 2022 SKCA 80
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: BUILDING TRUST IN A COMPLEX POLICY ENVIRONMENT OECD. The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) asked people in 30 countries about how much they trusted 11 public institutions, including the courts and judicial system, national parliament, news media and police among others. Just how did the police stack up to these institutions? Listen to find out.
OECD countries — Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
OECD website.
Trust in different public institutions, other people and media.
OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions - 2024 Results — Country Notes: Canada.
OECD (2022), Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, Building Trust in Public Institutions.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Cameron, 2024 ONCA 231 where police — responding to a home invasion style robbery — detained a man leaving the scene in a vehicle. Was taking his keys to prevent his flight reasonable as an incident to investigative detention? Was telling him the police were “investigating a serious incident that happened in the area” sufficient to comply with s. 10(a)? Was moving him several kilometres away from the stop and then advising him of his right to counsel — some 11 minutes after his initial detention — a s. 10(b) breach? Listen for the answer to these and other questions.
Trial court Charter ruling.
Sentencing decision.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Brown, 2024 ONCA 453 where police executed a Feeney warrant to arrest a man as part of the multi-jurisdictional investigation of a gang suspected of criminal activity, including trafficking in drugs and firearms. The warrant did not authorize a no-knock entry but police used a ram to break down the door without prior announcement anyways. A trial judge found the dynamic entry breached the Charter and stayed some, but not all of the charges, under s. 24(1). Was the partial stay of proceedings warranted or would something else suffice to address the damage done to the integrity of the justice system occasioned by the police misconduct? What lessons can you learn from this case?
— R. v. Brown, 2022 ONCJ 597 (lower court decision)
— Project Sunder press conference
Also check out Episode 26 — House arrest or home invasion? Fundamentals, frustration & Feeney — and Episode 57 — Dynamic entries & no-knock no-nos — for more on entries to a dwelling house.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court's 2023 Year in Review. How do last year's stats stack up against previous years? What does it mean for a decision to be unanimous? And how often does the court disagree on the outcome of a case?
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Williams, 2024 ONCA 508 where an officer searched a vehicle after arresting its passenger on an outstanding warrant, finding drugs under his seat — including cocaine and fentanyl. The officer testified the search was a “search incident to arrest”, but no further questions were asked of him and nothing more was said. The accused did not challenge the constitutionality of the search at trial but, after being convicted of two PPT counts and breaching his bail, he argued before an appellate court that there was no basis for the search because the arrest was made pursuant to a warrant. Did the Court of Appeal take up the accused’s challenge? And what lesson can the police learn from this ruling?
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Williams, 2024 ONCA 69 where police — relying on CPIC — arrested a man for breaching a no-contact condition of his undertaking and, following a search of his vehicle, found a loaded handgun. It turned out an exception to the no-contact condition was in play (i.e., there was no breach) but the police failed to check a different and easily accessible database which would have alerted them to its applicability. Were the grounds for arrest objectively reasonable? Should the police have blindly relied upon the CPIC entry? Would a search incidental to this arrest be lawful? These are just some of the questions to be addressed in this episode.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
Provide your feedback here. Send me a Text Message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Court of Appeal decision R. v. Donovan, 2024 BCCA 213, where an officer claimed a search — resulting in the discovery of GHB and methamphetamine — was to inventory an impounded vehicle’s contents. Defence argued the evidence found during the inventory — a search related to concerns extraneous to the criminal law — should not be admissible in a criminal trial. Was the accused right? Or could the evidence discovered during the inventory search be used in a criminal prosecution?
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike shares his response to the criticism levelled against a police officer who, after arresting the driver of a vehicle for PPT, had the vehicle towed to the police station and searched it without a warrant. Did the distance and delay of the search — from the place and time of arrest — render a search of the vehicle outside the permissible scope of the common law doctrine of search incident to arrest? Can the police move a vehicle to properly search it? Or must a search incident to arrest follow immediately on the heels of an arrest?
References: Hunter v. Southam, [1984] 2 SCR 145; Fleming v. Ontario, 2019 SCC 45; R. v. Stairs, 2022 SCC 11; Allen v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), 2013 ABCA 187; R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 SCRT 51; R. v. Stillman, [1997] 1 SCR 607; R. v. Saeed, 2016 SCC 24; Cloutier v. Langlois, [1990] 1 SCR 158; R. v. Lim (No. 2), 1990 1 CRR (2d) 136; R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24; R. v. Stebeleski, 2007 MBCA 1; R. v. Condon, 2006 BCCA 318; R. v. Washington, 2007 BCCA 540; R. v. Asp, 2011 BCCA 433; R. v. Frederickson, 2018 BCPC 296; R. v. Bakal, [2019] O.J. No. 6839 aff'd 2021 ONCA 584; R. v. Andrews, 2004 MBCA 60. Most of these cases can be found at canlii.org.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Court of Appeal decision R. v. Vu, [1998] Docket: CA023384 (BCCA) where police suspected a man of dealing in illegal weapons but thought they did not have enough grounds for a warrant to search his house. Police then placed a phone call to the man telling him they had a search warrant and were on their way to his house. Police watched the man as he exited his house with a garbage bag, put it in his truck and drove way. He was subsequently arrested and his truck was searched, revealing illegal weapons, drugs, and jewelry. Could the police use the man’s response to the phone call as part of their reasonable grounds for arrest? Was the search of the truck lawful?
Here's Vu's sentence appeal if you're interested.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Poole, 2015 BCCA 464where police — from inside their cruiser — spoke to a pedestrian standing on the street. After asking some questions and obtaining his name, he was checked on CPIC, which revealed an outstanding warrant for the man's arrest. Police stepped from their car, arrested the man and searched him, finding a loaded, cocked handgun in his pants. At just what point was the man detained? Was it — as the man claimed — when he was accosted by police and asked for his name? Or was it when the warrant was executed and he was actually arrested? Just when does an interaction with police morph into a detention triggering Charter rights under ss. 9 and 10?
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses circumstantial evidence and alternate theories to guilt that may inferentially arise, even without an accused testifying. Just when does an inference cross the line from the speculative to the rational? Does common sense have anything to do with it? Or will any conceivable hypothetical or imaginative conclusion inconsistent with guilt suffice in raising a reasonable doubt? And how can understanding the inference drawing process prompt you to be a better investigator?
Examples referenced — R. v. Dautruche, 2024 ONCA 426, R. v. Williams-Senior, 2024 ONCA 175, R. v. MacAdam 2024 ONCA 13, R. v. Pyne, 2023 ONCA 714.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Dautruche, 2024 ONCA 426 where an officer found cocaine in a vehicle he had searched after arresting its driver who had fled from a traffic stop and crashed. The officer claimed his search of the vehicle was to find evidence of the driver’s possible motive for fleeing? Was a search for this purpose truly incidental to the arrest? Was there some reasonable basis for the officer to do what he did? Check out this episode for all sorts of information — including the ABCs — about searching a vehicle incident to arrest.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Hoang, 2024 ONCA 54 where the police covertly installed a pole camera in a public place to record — for 8 days — the front of the accused’s detached home, including the movement of people and vehicles in and out of it and any activities taking place in front. Did this amount to a search such that s. 8 of the Charter was engaged and a warrant was required? The answer may surprise you!
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision R. v. Morrison, 2024 NBCA 54 where a trial judge personally called two police officers to get more information about a case he was presiding over? Was this out-of-court contact off-side? Or was the judge simply clarifying what he heard in court? Should the serious charges facing the accused be stayed? What would you do if a judge called to ask questions about a case? And what happened to the judge?
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike celebrates the Charter's 42nd birthday! On April 17, 1982 -- when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. Listen to learn about some of the early discussion on the s. 8 (unreasonable search or seizure) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention) rights and how you can use the Supreme Court's interpretive framework to Charter proof your actions.
Also check out the Constitutional Policing Seminar Series Mike will be presenting!
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Devos, 2024 MBCA 23 where police made a demand for breath samples following a single vehicle rollover where a 15-year-old passenger was killed. Did the officer have the required reasonable grounds for the breathalyzer demand? And what happens when judges don’t see all of the facts the same way? Can evidence be reasonably subject to different interpretations? And would the officer’s grounds stand up even when some of what the officer relied upon was discounted?
Check out the JIBC Police Academy — International Use of Force Expert Conference — April 23-26, 2024. Last chance to register is April 16.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision R. v. Maurer, 2024 SKCA 20 where a K9 was stabbed after police tried to arrest a man for sexual assault. Despite an acquittal on the sexual assault charge, the man was convicted at trial in provincial court for resisting arrest (s. 129(a)), injuring a law enforcement animal (s. 445.01(1)) and carrying concealed weapons (s. 90). Was the man’s arrest lawful such that the police were in the execution of their duties? Does the legality of an arrest even matter? Does a person have the right to resist an unlawful arrest? Find out what an appeal court had to say.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision R. v. Morrison, 2024 NBCA 35 where police conducted an inventory search of a vehicle they towed from a bar parking lot. Did a request to be on the look out for the vehicle, having earlier been involved in a high-speed chase with the RCMP, taint the inventory search ? Or could police have other investigative reasons in mind when inventorying the vehicle and its contents. Did the police go too far in searching a book bag found on the front seat or a soft case found under it? And did the discovery of any drugs taint the issuance of a search warrant and render the search unreasonable under s. 8 of the Charter?
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses recent survey results from polling about the amount of confidence or trust Canadians have in various institutions, including the school system, media, parliament, the justice system and courts, and the police. Just how did the police stack up against these other institutions? No surprises here. Check out the results for yourself.
Confidence in institutions and the media, 2023 — February 2024
Confidence in Canadian Institutions (infographic) — November 2023
Institutional Confidence: Canadians’ and Americans’ Perspectives — November 2023
Experiences of discrimination in daily life among Chinese people in Canada, and their perceptions of and experiences with the police and the justice system — August 2023
Note-able quotes:
"Any one can hold the helm when the sea is calm.”— Publilius Syrus“A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.”— John Shed“A smooth sea never made a skilled sailor.”— Franklin Roosevelt
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses dynamic entries and the legal standard for deviating from the long standing common law rule of "knock and announce" by looking at two recent Ontario Superior Court decisions, R. v. Russell, 2024 ONSC 529 (watch the police entry here) and R. v. Harper, 2024 ONSC 925. Learn about the origins of the rule and how the Supreme Court of Canada explained it more than a decade ago. Would you be prepared to justify an unannounced hard entry should you need to? Or would you be in the same position as the officers in the cases discussed?
Check out the JIBC Police Academy — International Use of Force Expert Conference — April 23-26, 2024.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
TRIGGER WARNING: This episode contains graphic content of animal cruelty which may shock, offend or upset.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal decision R. v. Picco, 2023 NSCA 33, an animal cruelty case involving the treatment of four beagles. When authorities found the dogs, they were in “deplorable condition”, “emaciated”, “starving” and “near death”. You can see one of the dogs for yourself. Despite their condition, the trial judge found the dogs were not “suffering”, an essential actus reus element of a crime their owner was charged with. Did the trial judge’s ruling hold up on appeal? Or was the judge way off the mark? Listen to discover the answer to these and other questions.
s. 445.1(1)(a) Criminal Code — Causing unnecessary suffering
Every one commits an offence who (a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird.
Beagle Paws
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses R. v. Isaac, 2022 MBPC 73, where police acted on the tip of a confidential informer reporting a man with a particular name would be attending a particular area, at a particular time, by a particular mode of transportation with drugs and cash? When police arrived at the location within the anticipated time, they saw the man as described, arrested him and found methamphetamine and cash. Did the police have the necessary grounds for the arrest? How does a court assess the reliability of source information? What if the tip had been anonymous? Listen to discover the answer to these and other questions. You might also want to check out R. v. Jir, 2010 BCCA 497, another case discussed in this episode.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision R. v. Arsenault, 2024 NSCA 10, an update to a case featured in E3| Inventory searches. Things that make you go hmmm? This case involved a vehicle inventory search in which a loaded handgun was found in a glovebox and was seized without a warrant. Was this warrantless seizure lawful? Listen to find out what Nova Scotia's top court said when it weighed in on the matter.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses R. v. Zacharias, 2023 SCC 30 a case involving a traffic stop that led to an investigative detention for a drug offence and the deployment of a sniffer dog. When the dog signalled the presence of drugs, the driver was arrested and the vehicle was searched incidental to arrest. This led to the discovery of more than 100 lbs. of marihauna along with other evidence including $12,600 in cash. Further arrests for PPT and possessing proceeds of crime followed as did transport to the police detachment for booking. Did the officer have enough to detain the driver and use the K9? If he didn’t, could the hit by the dog still be used to justify the arrest that followed? Or would the arrest also be unlawful and everything else that followed breach the Charter? And if the Charter was infringed, would the evidence be excluded? Listen to discover the answer to these and other questions.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses R. v. Noor, 2022 ONCA 338 where police responded to a 911 report of a man flashing a gun in the waistband of his pants. When police approached the accused — a man matching the suspect description found in the area — he appeared startled and quickly walked away. The man resisted police efforts to detain him and a violent struggle ensued. In the process of overcoming his resistance, police saw the butt of a handgun inside his jacket pocket. Was this encounter an investigative detention or an arrest? Did the police have the necessary grounds to physically restrain the accused? Was the degree of force used to control him reasonable? Was the seizure of the handgun lawful? Listen to discover the answer to these and other questions.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Baddock, 2008 BCCA 48where a police officer, acting on a tip about a dial-a-doper, called a drug line and arranged for a meet. When a car arrived at a pre-arranged location but left within minutes, the officer suspected it was the drug dealer's car and pulled it over. Listen to find out what the officer did next to elevate his suspicion to what he believed were the grounds needed for an arrest. Did the judge agree with the officer? And what did the Court of Appeal think about all of this? Perhaps you may find this officer's tactic useful in your next drug investigation.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Murphy, 2006 Docket: C42133 (ONCA) where a police officer, acting on a tip about a man with a gun, saw the accused reach into his shirt and appear to be holding a gun tucked into his loose pants as he ran across the street. The accused was arrested, and in the course of a search incidental to arrest, police discovered cocaine and a handgun tucked into his pants. Did this tip — which the court treated as coming from an anonymous, untested informer — provide enough grounds for an arrest which prompted the search incidental to it? Or was more required? Mike looks at these and other questions.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Williams, 2013 ONCA 772 where a police officer, acting on an anonymous tip about a man with a gun, approached the accused and asked if he was armed. When the accused did not answer, bladed his body, motioned for his waist and did not follow directions, police grabbed his arms, lifted his t-shirt and saw the butt of a handgun. The man was then arrested, searched and police recovered the loaded pistol and drugs. Did the anonymous tip provide enough suspicion for an investigative detention? Did the actions of the police exceed what was reasonable and amount to a de facto arrest? Did the lifting of the t-shirt go beyond the pat-down type search incidental to an investigative detention authorized in R. v. Mann? Was it the equivalent of a strip search? Mike looks at these and other questions.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Supreme Court decision R. v. Gallant, 2023 BCSC 1786 where a police officer testified he saw drugs in view during a traffic stop. Did the judge buy what the officer was selling? Did it help that some of what the officer said about the accused didn't match what was captured on video? What happen's when an officer's candour is challenged on cross-examination? Listen and learn. Your credibility, case and career may count on it.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
TRIGGER WARNING: This episode contains graphic content, including violence, suicide and death which may shock, offend or upset.
In this episode, Mike discusses BC's Independent Investigations Office (IIO) and their most recent annual report. Are BC police notifying the IIO of only the cases that should be reported to them? Or are too many events being reported, including those that clearly do not fall within the IIO's mandate? What does the annual report tell us and should the criteria used for IIO notification be revisited? And how do notifications to the IIO stack up to Ontario's Special Investigations Unit (SIU) reporting?
Files mentioned:
IIO Case 2020-290 (Surrey RCMP)
IIO Case 2022-018 (VicPD)
IIO Case 2023-066 (VPD)
IIO Case 2023-124 (Duncan RCMP)
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench decision R. v. McDonald, 2023 SKKB 180 where a police officer, as a prelude to placing a driver in the back of a police vehicle, conducted a protective pat-down before obtaining a roadside breath sample. Was this safety search incidental to the roadside breath test procedure reasonable? Or did it amount to a s. 8 Charter breach? Listen and learn.
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com
In this episode, Mike discusses the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal decision R. v. Churchill, 2023 NLCA 26 where a man — ejected from a bar following a fight — was taken into police custody for being intoxicated in a public place . While handcuffed, and sitting in the secure rear seat of a police car parked outside the police lockup, the man told the officer, “I’m going to put my fucking boot in your head”. Did these words amount to an offence under the Criminal Code threatening provision? Did the fact the police officer continued to do his job and booked the man into jail properly raise a reasonable doubt about the required intent when the comment was made? Or did taking the man into custody for public intoxication — and the level of drunkenness required for it — neuter the mens rea component for uttering a threat?
Criminal Code: s. 264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat (a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person ... .
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Whitfield, 2023 ONCA 479 where the police misidentified their arrestee. Did this misapprehension undermine the officer’s reasonable grounds, rendering the arrest unlawful and the subsequent incidental search — and seizure of fentanyl — unreasonable? Or was this mistake inconsequential to the lawfulness of the arrest? And what about police action taken at a time it was supported in the jurisprudence but several years later turned out to be incorrect in law? Can it still be said that the police were acting in good faith?
TRIGGER WARNING: This episode contains graphic content, including violence, suicide and death which may shock, offend or upset.
In this episode, Mike discusses Tracking Injustice: A Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Data and Transparency Project and Carleton University's assertion of it being a "National Database of Deaths Caused by Police Use of Force." Is the data set limited, as the project's website claims, to "killings and deaths following intentional police use of force" such as "shootings and instances where a person died after being subjected to other types of weapons (e.g., tasers, batons) or physical interventions (e.g., punches, kicks, physical holds)" ? Does the data accurately representonlyindividuals that "did die as a direct result of the police use of force"? Did the police kill 69 people in 2022 as the principal investigator on the project was quoted as saying in a CCLA press release and the media has since repeated? Or does this so called "National Database of Deaths Caused by Police Use of Force" include deaths that had little or nothing to do with police use of force? You be the judge.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Campbell, 2023 ONCA 483 where a convicted criminal contended a judge’s charge to a jury about why he ran from police should have included an instruction on the practical realities of racialized Canadians and systemic racism. Is it possible he fled because he feared the police as a marginalized Black man or did his flight demonstrate a consciousness of guilt related to his wrongdoing — kidnapping, assault and firearms offences? Or is the reason he fled even relevant to the Crown’s case? The answer may not be as black and white as you think.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Provincial Court decision R. v. Roberts, 2023 BCPC 118 in which a police officer stopped a person for speeding. Was this stop arbitrary because the police also wanted to identify the driver to advance a suspected drug trafficking investigation? Was instructing the driver to exit the vehicle an unreasonable search? What about ordering the driver to remove his hand from his pocket? Listen now to answer these and other questions posed by this police encounter.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal decision R. v. Simmons, 2023 PECA 4 where the police arrested two men, conducted an incidental search, and seized methamphetamine, cocaine and cannabis. Seeking the exclusion of evidence, the defence challenged the lead investigator's grounds for arrest. Did the the facts rise to the level required for a lawful arrest and find out why Mike used the Σ (sigma) symbol in the title's formula?
Mike's Mental Math
- W = the whole (totality of the circumstances)
-
= greater than
- Σ = the sum of
- F = fact
- n = set of numbers
In this episode, Mike discusses the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court decision R. v. Pike, 2023 NLPC 1322A00622 where the Crown’s impaired driving case didn’t go so well. Find out why and ask yourself whether you would have done anything different to prop up the prosecution.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Court of Appeal decision R. v. Fong, 2023 BCCA 196 where a police officer authorized the arrest of a man believed to be a dial-a-doper.Did the facts as found by the trial judge meet the legal threshold of reasonable grounds? Was the officer's SUBJECTIVE belief OBJECTIVELY reasonable? Listen and judge for yourself.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Statistics Canada report “Confidence in the police, the justice system and courts, the Federal Parliament, and the Canadian media varied across racialized groups” (March 31, 2023). Just how did the police stack up against the other institutions?
Yale Law School's four pillars of procedural justice.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. McGregor, 2023 SCC 4 where investigators searched a computer with a warrant for one purpose and discovered evidence related to entirely different crimes. Did the common law plain view doctrine apply in the digital world? Mike takes a deep dive into the requirements of this warrantless seizure power, and also briefly discusses the military justice system and data searches generally. You might also want to check out s. 489 of the Criminal Code.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Court of Appeal decision R. v. Dhillon, 2023 BCCA 38 where a police officer stopped a man for traffic reasons but safety concerns led to a pat-down, an investigative detention for drug trafficking and the discovery of a loaded handgun in a man-purse. The man argued an "imminent threat" to an officer (or to the public) was necessary for a safety search to be lawful and that such a threat did not exist in this case. What did the BC Court of Appeal say about this? Listen and learn. Your life may depend on it!
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Court of Appeal decision R. v. Lundy, 2023 BCCA 133 where a police officer arrested a man he believed was trafficking in drugs based on a tip and surveillance observations, all filtered through his experience. But the trial judge didn’t think the officer had enough grounds for an arrest, thereby arbitrarily detaining the man, and unreasonably searching him as an incident to the unlawful arrest. Would you make the arrest in similar circumstances? Listen and find out what BC’s Court of Appeal had to say when it weighed into the matter.
In this episode, Mike celebrates a birthday! It was 41 years ago today -- on April 17, 1982 -- when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. But the provisions of the Charter went through a series of drafts to become the text as you know it today. Listen to learn how the right to counsel as it found expression in s. 10(b) came to be.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision R. v. Macfie, 2023 SKCA 39 where a police officer came upon a man slumped over the steering wheel of a truck that was oddly positioned in the parking lot of a grocery store in the early morning hours. The keys were in the ignition and the truck was running. Very slurred speech, intensely blood shot eyes, a strong breath odour of liquor and droopy face muscles were observed. The man also has an unlit cigarette in his fingers and there was a bottle of beer nearby inside the truck. Would you have reasonable grounds to believe the man was in care and control of the truck while slightly impaired? What does your "common sense" tell you? You might be surprised how others might "see" this picture.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Court of Appeal decision R. v. Wilkinson, 2023 BCCA 3 where officers chased down a man who fled on foot as they drove by in an unmarked police car late at night in a high crime area. But the officers were not responding to a reported crime nor did they have a specific crime in mind when they took up pursuit. Was the reasonable suspicion standard justifying an investigative detention met? If you are a proactive police officer who likes to investigate and prevent crime rather than simply react to citizen reports of it, then you will want to listen to this.
Today, March 16, 2023, we lost two superheroes, 35-year-old Constable Travis Jordan (8.5 years of service) and 30-year-old Constable Brett Ryan (5.5 years of service). Both Edmonton Police Service officers were responding to a family dispute call in an apartment complex at about 12:47 a.m. Upon arrival, the officers entered the apartment building, approached the suite, and were shot by a young male suspect. At this time, all indications are that they did not have a chance to discharge their service weapons. Constable Jordan and Constable Ryan were rushed to hospital, where they were both declared deceased. Listen as EPS Chief Dale McFee speaks at a press conference.
Heroes remembered never die!
EPS Press Release.
EPS In Memoriam.
Cst. Ryan and Cst. Jordan Memorial Fundraiser.
In this episode, Mike discusses a trial tactic apparently used by some defence lawyers to make you feel humiliated while testifying. By knowing what to expect on cross-examination, you can “contemporaneously” keep your cool. If you can’t define contemporaneously, don’t feel less of yourself. Listen and you will understand what I mean. Keep calm and carry on!
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Justice decision R. v. Maftoon, (2021 ONCJ 583 / 2022 ONCJ 518) in which a patron at an outdoor public swimming pool took matters into his own hands and tried to argue the choices he made were somehow the fault of the police. Did his legal arguments stand up in court?
Warning: This podcast contains explicit details that may be hard to hear for some listeners.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Bond, 2021 ONCA 730 where a police officer resubmitted a search warrant application using the same information even though the warrant had already been rejected by a different justice. Did this amount to impermissible “judge-shopping” or was it a legitimate exercise? You might be surprised by the result.
See also R. v. Duchcherer & R. v. Oakes, 2006 BCCA 171.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision R. v. Mitchell, 2022 NSCA 77 where a suspect in an intimate partner violence investigation asked a court to stay all 32 charges against him because the police entered his home without a warrant to arrest him. No statement was obtained nor was any evidence found as a result of this entry and arrest. Was the police conduct so egregious that the court granted the request? Mike also speaks about domestic violence and how times have changed.
Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service Spousal/Partner Violence
BC Crown Counsel policy on Intimate Partner Violence
Ontario Crown Counsel policy on Intimate Partner Violence
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Supreme Court decision R. v. Morris, 2023 BCSC 106 where the court was tasked with determining whether a modified flare gun found in the accused’s pocket was actually a firearm. And that’s not all. Listen to learn whether the judge fell for the “someone snuck it in my pocket while I slept” defence.
Here are some Criminal Code definitions to help understand this case."firearm means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm". [s. 2]
"ammunition means a cartridge containing a projectile designed to be discharged from a firearm and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a caseless cartridge and a shot shell". [s. 84(1)]
"handgun means a firearm that is designed, altered or intended to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand, whether or not it has been redesigned or subsequently altered to be aimed and fired by the action of both hands". [s. 84(1)]
"prohibited firearm means
(a) a handgun that
(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or
(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge,
but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,
(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,
(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or
(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,
(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or
(d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm". [s. 84(1)]
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Beaver, 2022 SCC 54 where the court was tasked with determining whether a seasoned homicide detective was justified in ordering the arrest of two murder suspects. The legality of the arrest hinged on whether the detective had the requisite reasonable grounds to believe (1) a crime was committed and (2) the arrestees committed it. You be the judge. And ask yourself, what would you have done in this situation?
In this episode, Mike looks at the Independent Investigation Office's (IIO's) response to the Clear Statement issued by the BC Prosecution Service (Crown Counsel) explaining its decision not to lay charges against an RCMP officer who shot at and injured a man who was driving a truck erratically and struck police vehicles. The charges considered included attempted murder, aggravated assault/assault with a weapon, discharge a firearm with intent and reckless discharge of a firearm. Do you think this should have gone to trial? The Crown didn't and for good reason despite the view of the IIO.
In this episode, Mike looks at Klassen v. British Columbia (Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General), 2021 BCCA 294, leave to appeal ref’d
2022 CanLII 1932 (SCC), a civil case involving two people acquitted in a criminal trial of assaulting a peace officer who then sued the officer and the Province for damages alleging wrongful arrest and Charter breaches. Does the doctrine of issue estoppel prevent the officer from asserting the arrest he made was lawful, despite a contrary finding by the judge in the criminal trial? And how does Crown's role at the criminal trial play in all of this?
In this episode, Mike looks at R. v. Myers, 2022 NSCA 69, another inventory search case, this time released by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Listen to find out what the province's highest court said about whether the search of a passenger's personal belongings fits within the scope of a vehicle inventory search.
In this episode, Mike uses the case of R. v. Robertson, 2022 ONSC 5795 to discuss traffic related stops under provincial legislation for regulatory and road safety reasons. Does an officer’s testimonial declaration of purpose dictate a factual finding of purpose? If not, what happens? Listen and learn.
In this episode, Mike provides an outside look at Surrey's transition from the RCMP to the Surrey Police Service. In 2018 Brenda Locke, now the new mayor of Surrey, ran as a candidate for city council with the Safe Surrey Coalition which made the following promise: "We will also on Day 1 initiate the process to establish local Surrey Police Force that will be better able to deal with gang and gun crimes." Four years later, in 2022, Locke ran with the Surrey Connect Team with the vision to "keep the RCMP"and "stop the independent police service." Is this a case of playing politics with public safety? Mike gives his two cents worth.
In this episode, Mike discusses a question he was asked recently and uses the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision R. v. Ratt, 2020 SKCA 19to inform his response. Police officers, and judges, must be careful not to confuse or conflate what justifies an investigative detention or arrest with what constitutes detention or arrest in the first place. An officer’s intention to detain or arrest is not determinative of whether a detention or arrest in law has occurred. The relevant time to determine whether the requisite subjective and objective grounds exist for a detention or arrest is not at the time the officer makes the decision to do so, but at the time of the actual detention or arrest. So even though an officer might not have the objective grounds necessary when they make their decision, they may acquire the necessary objective grounds by the time the detention or arrest was actually effectuated. Listen and learn how this all plays out.
Notable Quote:
"Intention alone does not attract a finding of unconstitutionality. It is not until that subjective intent is accompanied by actual conduct that it becomes relevant. We would otherwise have the Orwellian result that Charter breaches are determined on the basis of what police officers intend to do, or think they can do, not on what they actually do. The Charter protects us from conduct, not imagination, and even a benign motive may not justify objectively unreasonable police conduct." - Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Clayton, 2007 SCC 32 at para. 48)
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Francis, 2022 ONCA 729 where police arrested a man on an outstanding arrest warrant and searched the vehicle he was driving, discovering a loaded pistol and drugs in the process. This was followed up with a strip search at the police station and more drugs were found. Was a search of the vehicle as an incident to arrest proper when the basis for the arrest was an outstanding arrest warrant and there was no urgency because the arrestee was in handcuffs sitting in the back of a police car? Was the strip search at the police station justified even though a pat-down did not disclose anything concerning? Listen and learn how this all played out.
Compare R. v. Santana, 2020 ONCA 365.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Ahmed, 2022 ONCA 640 where police officers detained the occupants of a vehicle matching the description of one suspected of being involved in gunfire. When an officer leaned in the car through its open door and lit up its interior with a flashlight, he saw a firearm partially sticking out from under a seat. It turns out the gun was loaded and had an extended magazine containing 26 rounds of 9 mm ammunition. Was the search of the vehicle lawful as an incident to investigative detention?
Here are some quotes from the Ontario Court of Appeal that might help you answer this question:
Investigative Detention: “The requirements for a justifiable investigative detention are twofold: (1) police officers must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the specific person is implicated in the criminal activity under investigation; and (2) the decision to detain must be reasonable on an overall assessment of all circumstances.”
Protective Search: “The law is clear that the police have the power to briefly detain individuals for investigative purposes and to conduct a limited pat-down or safety search incident to that detention. When an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that their safety or that of others is at risk, the officer may engage in a protective pat-down search of the detained individual.”
Plain View: “There are four criteria to be applied: (i) The officer must be lawfully positioned relative to where the item is found; (ii) the nature of the evidence must be immediately apparent as constituting a criminal offence; (iii) the evidence must have been discovered inadvertently; and (iv) the item must be visible without any exploratory search.”
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Court of Appeal decision R. v. Chen, 2022 BCCA 296 where it is considered a “best practice” for a police affiant to educate an authorizing judge about how the law operates in an application to intercept private communications. Although an affidavit may satisfy the requirements that trigger the exception to investigative necessity under s. 186(1.1) of the Criminal Code, it would seem a police affiant is now being asked to school a judge by drawing their attention to the law as it applies. If that's what it takes, I suppose this "advice" should not be ignored or you may run the risk of having your authorization struck down.
_______________________
Criminal Code
s. 186 (1) An authorization under this section may be given if the judge to whom the application is made is satisfied
(a) that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so; and
(b) that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed or the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures.
Exception for criminal organizations and terrorism offences
(1.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(b), that paragraph does not apply where the judge is satisfied that the application for an authorization is in relation to
(a) an offence under section 467.11, 467.111, 467.12 or 467.13;
(b) an offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization; or
(c) a terrorism offence.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Supreme Court decision R. v. Castle, 2022 BCSC 596 1292 where a police officer conducted a pat-down search of a cyclist who was riding his bike at night without a helmet or lights on his bike. Not only did the officer pat-down the cyclist, he removed a small box from the cyclist’s front hoodie pocket, opened it and discovered drugs. Were these pat-down, pocket and box searches justified as an incident to detention?
In this episode, Mike responds to a listener's question about a wife's surreptitious "search" of her husband's cell phone on which she locates child pornography, prints off screen shots of the images and brings them into the police station to report what she found. The Alberta Court of Appeal decision of R. v. King, 2021 ABCA 271 is used as a basis for discussion as it appears to address similar circumstances.
A quick note on s. 8 Charter search and seizure law:
- Not every form of examination conducted by the police (government) will constitute a "search"’ for Charter (constitutional) purposes.
- Only state examinations constituting an intrusion into a person's reasonable expectation of privacy (REP) will amount to a "search" within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter.
- State intrusions into a reasonable expectation of privacy (searches) are permissible if they are “reasonable”.
- A search will be reasonable if it is authorized by a reasonable law and carried out in a reasonable manner.
SEARCH = POLICE + INTRUSION + REP
The lower provincial court ruling for the King case can be found here.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Williams, 2022 ONCA 596 where a panel of three judges had to determine whether the arrest of the accused, prompted by informer information, was based on reasonable grounds. Listen for yourself and see how the Appeal Court applied the 3 C's to assessing the RELIABILITY of the information provided:
- Was the information provided by the informer COMPELLING?
- Was the informer CREDIBLE?
- Was the information CORROBORATED by police investigation prior to making the decision to conduct the arrest/search?
Also check out R. v. Williams, 2014 ONCA 908.
In this episode, Mike responds to a listener's question about the validity of a penile swab. The Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Saeed, 2016 SCC 24 is discussed as well as academic and reference material in the area of penile swabs and DNA collection.
Croatian Medical Journal - Analysis of DNA Evidence Recovered from Epithelial Cells in Penile Swabs
Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine - Assessing the presence of female DNA on post-coital penile swabs: Relevance to the investigation of sexual assault
Harborview Medical Center - Suspect Evidence Collection Guidelines Sexual Assault
Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia - Evidence Based Forensic Sampling Standards
Manitoba Law Journal - Persistence and Variability of DNA: Penile Washings and Intimate Bodily Examinations in Sex-Related Offences
Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine - Recommendations for the collection of forensic specimens from complainants and suspects
Statistics Canada 2021 police reported sexual assault
Sexual assault: Is classified by level in the Criminal Code into three separate categories—depending on the nature and severity of the incident—including level 1, assault of a sexual nature that violates the sexual integrity of the victim; level 2, sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm involves sexual assault with a weapon, threats to use a weapon or causing bodily harm; and level 3, aggravated sexual assault involves sexual assault that wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the victim.
Sexual assault Level 1 - 33,521 reported offences (+18% from 2020)
Sexual assault Level 2 - 598 reported offences (-5% from 2020)
Sexual assault Level 3 - 123 reported offences (-13% from 2020)
Statistics Canada notes that "the number of sexual assaults reported by police is likely a significant underestimation of the true extent of sexual assault in Canada, as these types of offences often go unreported to police."
In this episode, Mike highlights recent public opinion polls amongst Canadians and how they view police officers when compared to other actors in the legal system. You might be pleasantly surprised! Mike also uses a recent OPCC decision as an example of how the media failed to cover the ultimate outcome of a complaint against two officers accused of racial profiling. The allegations against the officers made headlines but their vindication was met with silence.
OPCC Appointment of retired judge
s. 117 Review - Notice of Adjudicator's Decision
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Sillars, 2022 ONCA 510 where a panel of three judges had to determine whether a canoe was a vessel such that the impaired operation and testing provisions of the Criminal Code applied. Also examined in this episode is the extent to which the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter is suspended for ASD demands at the hospital when the requisite suspicion is formed bedside. It is important to understand that the law has been amended since the facts that led to this decision arose. The Criminal Code ASD demand provisions at the time of Sillars and today are referenced below for your convenience.
Law at the time of Sillars (2017)
- Testing for presence of alcohol or a drug
s. 254 (2) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a motor vehicle or vessel, operated or assisted in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or had the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, whether it was in motion or not, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with paragraph (a), in the case of a drug, or with either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b), in the case of alcohol ... (b) to provide forthwith a sample of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.
- vessel includes a machine designed to derive support in the atmosphere primarily from reactions against the earth’s surface of air expelled from the machine.
Law today (July 2022)
- Testing for presence of alcohol or drug
320.27 (1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a conveyance, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with the requirements of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b) in the case of alcohol or with the requirements of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (c) in the case of a drug ... (b) to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose ... .
- Mandatory alcohol screening
320.27 (2) If a peace officer has in his or her possession an approved screening device, the peace officer may, in the course of the lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law, by demand, require the person who is operating a motor vehicle to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of that device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.
- conveyance means a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment.
- vessel includes a hovercraft.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Quebec Court of Appeal decision R. v. Leventis, 2022 QCCA 291 where a panel of three judges had to determine whether an arrest for drug possession was justified based on an anonymous tip of drug trafficking, along with suspicious observations, when viewed through the lens of the officer's experience. Also examined in this episode is the extent to which an anonymous tip is scrutinized and the role an officer's experience plays in the reasonable grounds analysis.
"Experience is the hardest kind of teacher. It gives you the test first and the lesson afterward.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Note: The court's decision was rendered in French and additional details were taken from the trial court's rulings.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Court of Appeal decision R.v .Choi, 2021 BCCA where a panel of three judges had to determine whether a search conducted of a drug arrestee while he was booked into police cells amounted to a "strip search" such that the guidelines enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Golden ought to apply. The arrestee's challenge to his sentence appeal (R. v. Choi, 2022 BCCA 90) will also be briefly reviewed.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decisionR. v. Tim, 2022 SCC 12. In it, Canada's top court had to decide: (1) whether a police officer’s mistake of law rendered an arrest unlawful and therefore arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter; (2) if so, whether the subsequent searches of the arrestee were authorized by law under s. 8 of the Charter; and (3) if there were Charter breaches, whether the evidence, including a loaded pistol and fentanyl, should be excluded under s. 24(2). You might be surprised by the outcome.
Additional details about this case were found in appeal documents.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Alberta Court of Appeal decision R. v. Bidlock-Hawkins, 2022 ABCA 201 where, during a Charter voir dire, a trial judge concluded the police had used excessive force and then had to decide an appropriate remedy under s. 24 of the Charter. This episode may help you understand how s. 25 of the Criminal Code applies to your conduct in a criminal trial in which you are not a defendant but a Crown witness.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision, R. v. Smith, 2022 ONCA 439 where police arrested the accused for drug possession, towed his vehicle back to the station and pried open a locked box - described as a safe - in which heroin, fentanyl and meth were found inside. Was prying open the "safe" without a warrant proper? Learn how you can protect your warrantless searches of vehicles and containers found inside as an incident to arrest from Charter challenge.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision R. v. Arsenault, 2022 NSSC 149 involving a vehicle inventory search in which a loaded handgun was found in a glovebox and uses it as a basis to take a deep dive into these type of searches and how you can protect your searches from Charter challenge.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada reasoning in R. v. Ali, 2022 SCC 1 and the standard required to justify a strip search incidental to an arrest.
"Where a strip search is conducted as an incident to a person’s lawful arrest, there must be reasonable and probable grounds justifying the strip search, in addition to reasonable and probable grounds justifying the arrest. These grounds are met for the strip search where there is some evidence suggesting the possibility of concealment of weapons or other evidence related to the reason for the arrest."
See also R. v. Golden, 2001 SCC 83.
Are you case law curious? If you're a cop, you should be. In this episode Mike explains the mission behind the podcast and why every police officer should study, learn and understand case law. This is for cops about cops.