Legal Issues In Policing

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Baddock, 2008 BCCA 48 where 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 [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

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 [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

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 [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

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 [email protected]

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 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 [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

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 [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

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 ... .

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 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? 

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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 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"police shootings that resulted in death, 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 represent only individuals 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. 

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 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.  

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]