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

The 2025 International Use of Force Expert Conference April 29-May 1, 2025

This conference is designed for professionals who have an interest in developing a deeper understanding of this subject matter area, or in building the foundational skills towards becoming a court-qualified use of force expert.

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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!

Low court ruling 

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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?

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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?

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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.

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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  

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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?

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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?

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]