Legal Issues In Policing

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 [email protected]

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 [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. 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 [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. 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 [email protected]

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 [email protected]

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 [email protected]

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 [email protected]

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 [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. 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 [email protected]

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 [email protected]