By 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
... more
The podcast currently has 81 episodes available.
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 [email protected]
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 [email protected]
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:
Trial court ruling
First level appeal ruling
BC's Alco-Sensor FST Operator's Manual
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]
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
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]
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 [email protected]
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. Just how did the police stack up against 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.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]
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 [email protected]
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?Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]
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 [email protected]
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 [email protected]
The podcast currently has 81 episodes available.
14,129 Listeners
204,734 Listeners
190 Listeners
30,490 Listeners
13,767 Listeners
2,191 Listeners
8,078 Listeners
204 Listeners
359 Listeners
1,742 Listeners
4,991 Listeners
123 Listeners
149 Listeners
8 Listeners
263 Listeners