Explore every episode of the podcast Legal Issues In Policing

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

In this episode, Mike discusses BC’s Independent Investigations Office (IIO) and referrals to Crown Counsel. What can be learned from the data? How long does it take for the IIO to conduct an investigation forwarded for prosecution? How long does it take before a decision on charges is made? And how many convictions have been obtained after trial? The answers may (or may not) surprise you!

IIO Annual Report 2023-2024
IIO Annual Report 2022-2023

2024-160: Saanich Police 

2021-171: Vernon RCMP — Crown's Clear Statement

2020-110: Williams Lake RCMP

2024-265: Vancouver Transit Police

2024-223: Abbotsford Police

2024-156: Nanaimo RCMP

2016-051: Prince George RCMP — trial judgement acquittal

BCPS Media & Clear Statement — Stay of proceedings relating to charges arising out of the death of Dale Culver

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Donawa, 2025 SCC 10 where police found a handgun in a driver’s fanny pack during a roadside stop. The police sent the handgun for testing, but did not send the magazine or the ammunition found in it. A trial judge ruled the handgun was NOT a firearm — as defined under s. 2 of the Criminal Code — because it required special expertise, considerable time, and a part not readily available to make it operable. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision, finding the gun was an operable firearm because it was capable of firing when loaded. The Supreme Court of Canada was then asked to weigh in. Listen and find out what their take on the issue was. 

Criminal Code (s. 2):

"firearm means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm."

Lower court ruling

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses a crime prevention project he spearheaded called “OPERATION LODESTAR”, meaning one who serves as a guide or model. As part of this initiative, a poster was released depicting a young boy dressed up like a gangster with the caption — “When I grow up I want to be just like daddy. Kids live what they learn. Be the parent your child needs.” The campaign was both criticized and commended. Listen how the project was started and maybe you can use some of what you learn.

Includes audio from Operation Lodestar: Parenting Matters video.

More resources including posters & Parenting Matters video link.

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Kostuk, 2025 ONCA 195 where police arrested a man in the stabbing death of his friend. The man — who claimed he was suffering from schizophrenia and had not taken his medication — argued the police breached his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel because they (1) took no steps to address his mental health issues before he spoke with his lawyer and (2) did not give him another opportunity to speak with his lawyer after he had taken his medication. Were the police required to take the man to the hospital as he requested? Was a second advisement about the right to counsel required after the man received his medication? What is the test for assessing cognitive capacity in the s. 10(b) context? And just how did the Court of Appeal address these questions. 

Lower court ruling

Lower court sentencing

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Plummer, 2011 ONCA 350 where police saw a man seated in a vehicle illegally parked near an apartment door where people would buy drugs. As the police  passed by, the man appeared shocked or surprised and moved forward while slouching down as if to conceal something. When the man provided his name, the police recognized him as being associated to an officer safety alert describing him as possibly armed with a handgun. The man was asked to exit the vehicle and — when patted down — police found he was wearing a bullet proof vest. As police moved in to search the car, the man fled. Police discovered a loaded handgun in an overnight bag that was near where the man had been sitting. Was the man’s detention lawful? And, if he had standing to challenge the searches, was the vehicle and bag search valid as an incident to investigative detention? Or is this common law power limited only to a pat-down of the detainee?  

Lower court ruling

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision R. v. Harpold, 2024 SKCA 26, where a plain clothed police officer saw a man masturbating in his car in the parking lot of a mall as she walked by it and looked through the driver’s window. When this went to trial, the man argued his vehicle was not a “public place" for the purpose of an indecent act charge. Is a private motor vehicle parked in a public place itself a public place for the purpose of the “indecent act” provision? Does the express or implied “access” as of right or by invitation required in the meaning of “public place” require physical access, or is visual access sufficient?  Listen to find out what Saskatchewan’s top court ruled. 

Regina Police Service press release

Edmonton Service press release

R. v. Desylva, 2025 ABKB 130

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Jir, 2010 BCCA 497 where a police officer, after acting on an anonymous tip, stopped a motorist and immediately arrested him. When police searched the trunk of his car without a warrant, 120,000 ecstasy tablets were discovered. Did the police have enough grounds to arrest the man based on the anonymous tip? Or was more needed? Mike looks at these questions and what factors you can use to assess the reliability of information provided by a tipster.

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike again discusses recent survey results from Statistics Canada  about the amount of confidence Canadians had in various institutions, including the school system, media, parliament, the justice system and courts, and the police. Just how did the compare to these other institutions? Check out the results for yourself.

Confidence in institutions, by gender and other selected sociodemographic characteristics

Confidence in institutions, by gender and province

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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!

Lower court ruling 

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Justice decision R. v. Hoggar, 2024 ONCJ 546 where an officer found drugs, a loaded handgun and extended magazines after arresting a man for PPT, towing his vehicle to a private garage, searching more than an hour later, all while using a K9 to sniff it and dismantling its door panels. No exigent circumstances existed nor did the officer obtain a search warrant. Did the delay and manner in which the warrantless search incident to arrest was conducted render it unlawful? Or was there some reasonable basis for the officer to do what he did?

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Sabiston, 2024 SCC 33 where police arrested a known gang member for possessing stolen property. He was seen walking in a high gang crime area while wearing a bullet-proof vest that looked just like the type worn by police. After searching the man, a sawed-off shotgun was found in his backpack. Despite concluding the arrest was unlawful and police conduct breached s. 8 (unreasonable search or seizure) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention) of the Charter, the trial judge found the police had enough suspicion to detain the man and could have searched him for safety anyway. Since the gun was discoverable through an otherwise lawful means (although not exercised), the evidence was admissible under s. 24(2) and the man was convicted of several weapon related offences. Listen to learn how Canada’s top court felt about all of this? 

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Court of Quebec decision R. v. Hennigar, 2024 QCCQ 4849 where police entered an apartment on the invite of a co-habitant to recover a loaded pistol she had found while cleaning a closet. Could the co-resident validly consent to the police entry in the accused's absence? Could the police conduct also be justified as a safety search? Or was a warrant required? Listen for the answers to these and other questions as they may help inform your future decision making.  

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously 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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously 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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously 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:

• s. 320.15 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, knowing that a demand has been made, fails or refuses to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a demand made under section 320.27 or 320.28.
• s. 320.27 (1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol ... in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a conveyance, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person ...  (b) to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose ...

Trial court ruling
First level appeal ruling
BC's Alco-Sensor FST Operator's Manual

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously 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

• Statistics Canada Data by Policing District/Zone
• Police Reported Crime in Canada, 2023 (CSI) infographic
• Understanding and Using the Crime Severity Index 
• Police-reported Information Hub: Selected Crime Indicators
• Police-reported Information Hub: Criminal Violations
• Police-reported Information Hub: Geographic Crime Comparisons
• Police-reported Information Hub: Homicide in Canada
• Incident-based crime statistics, by detailed violations, Canada, provinces, territories, Census Metropolitan Areas and Canadian Forces Military Police
• Crime severity index and weighted clearance rates, Canada, provinces, territories and Census Metropolitan Areas

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously 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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously 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.

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously 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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously 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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Devos, 2024 MBCA 23 where police made a demand for breath samples following a single vehicle rollover where a 15-year-old passenger was killed. Did the officer have the required reasonable grounds for the breathalyzer demand? And what happens when judges don’t see all of the facts the same way? Can evidence be reasonably subject to different interpretations? And would the officer’s grounds stand up even when some of what the officer relied upon was discounted?  

Check out the JIBC Police Academy — International Use of Force Expert Conference — April 23-26, 2024. Last chance to register is April 16.

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision R. v. Maurer, 2024 SKCA 20 where a K9 was stabbed after police tried to arrest a man for sexual assault. Despite an acquittal on the sexual assault charge, the man was convicted at trial in provincial court for resisting arrest (s. 129(a)), injuring a law enforcement animal (s. 445.01(1)) and carrying concealed weapons (s. 90). Was the man’s arrest lawful such that the police were in the execution of their duties? Does the legality of an arrest even matter? Does a person have the right to resist an unlawful arrest?  Find out what an appeal court had to say. 

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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 35 where police conducted an inventory search of a vehicle they towed from a bar parking lot. Did a request to be on the look out for the vehicle, having earlier been involved in a high-speed chase with the RCMP, taint the inventory search ? Or could police have other investigative reasons in mind when inventorying the vehicle and its contents. Did the police go too far in searching a book bag found on the front seat or a soft case found under it? And did the discovery of any drugs taint the issuance of a search warrant and render the search unreasonable under s. 8 of the Charter? 

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses recent survey results from polling about the amount of confidence or trust Canadians have in various institutions, including the school system, media, parliament, the justice system and courts, and the police. Just how did the police stack up against these other institutions? No surprises here. Check out the results for yourself.

Confidence in institutions and the media, 2023 — February 2024
Confidence in Canadian Institutions (infographic) — November 2023
Institutional Confidence: Canadians’ and Americans’ Perspectives — November 2023
Experiences of discrimination in daily life among Chinese people in Canada, and their perceptions of and experiences with the police and the justice system — August 2023

Note-able quotes:

"Any one can hold the helm when the sea is calm.” — Publilius Syrus
“A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.” — John Shed
“A smooth sea never made a skilled sailor.” — Franklin Roosevelt 

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses dynamic entries and the legal standard for deviating from the long standing common law rule of "knock and announce" by looking at two recent Ontario Superior Court decisions, R. v. Russell, 2024 ONSC 529 (watch the police entry here) and R. v. Harper, 2024 ONSC 925. Learn about the origins of the rule and how the Supreme Court of Canada explained it more than a decade ago. Would you be prepared to justify an unannounced hard entry should you need to? Or would you be in the same position as the officers in the cases discussed? 

Check out the JIBC Police Academy — International Use of Force Expert Conference — April 23-26, 2024.

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

TRIGGER WARNING: This episode contains graphic content of animal cruelty which may shock, offend or upset.

In this episode, Mike discusses the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal decision R. v. Picco, 2023 NSCA 33, an animal cruelty case involving the treatment of four beagles. When authorities found the dogs, they were in “deplorable condition”, “emaciated”, “starving” and “near death”. You can see one of the dogs for yourself. Despite their condition, the trial judge found the dogs were not “suffering”, an essential actus reus element of a crime their owner was charged with. Did the trial judge’s ruling hold up on appeal? Or was the judge way off the mark? Listen to discover the answer to these and other questions.

s. 445.1(1)(a) Criminal Code — Causing unnecessary suffering

Every one commits an offence who (a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird.

Beagle Paws

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses R. v. Isaac, 2022 MBPC 73, where police acted on the tip of a confidential informer reporting a man with a particular name would be attending a particular area, at a particular time, by a particular mode of transportation with drugs and cash? When police arrived at the location within the anticipated time,  they saw the man as described, arrested him and found methamphetamine and cash. Did the police have the necessary grounds for the arrest?  How does a court assess the reliability of source information? What if the tip had been anonymous? Listen to discover the answer to these and other questions. You might also want to check out R. v. Jir, 2010 BCCA 497, another case discussed in this episode.  

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision R. v. Arsenault, 2024 NSCA 10, an update to a case featured in E3| Inventory searches. Things that make you go hmmm? This case involved a vehicle  inventory search in which a loaded handgun was found in a glovebox and was seized without a warrant. Was this warrantless seizure lawful? Listen to find out what Nova Scotia's top court said when it weighed in on the matter. 

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Mike discusses R. v. Zacharias, 2023 SCC 30 a case involving a traffic stop that led to an investigative detention for a drug offence and the deployment of a sniffer dog. When the dog signalled the presence of drugs, the driver was arrested and the vehicle was searched incidental to arrest. This led to the discovery of more than 100 lbs. of marihauna along with other evidence including $12,600 in cash. Further arrests for PPT and possessing proceeds of crime followed as did transport to the police detachment for booking. Did the officer have enough to detain the driver and use the K9? If he didn’t, could the hit by the dog still be used to justify the arrest that followed? Or would the arrest also be unlawful and everything else that followed breach the Charter? And if the Charter was infringed, would the evidence be excluded? Listen to discover the answer to these and other questions. 

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com