Legal Issues In Policing

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

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

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 [email protected]

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

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 [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Poole, 2015 BCCA 464 where 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 [email protected]

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

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 [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. 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 [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. 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 [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. 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 [email protected]

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

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 [email protected]