Legal Issues In Policing

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision R. v. Seymour, 2026 ONSC 6138, where police stopped a car and one of its passenger's fled on foot. On the passenger side floor, police found a 3D printed handgun. Police then applied for a search warrant to search the data of a cell phone located at the scene. In the ITO, police said the fleeing man "dropped" the phone as he fled. But that was not accurate. The police found the phone inside the car. Was this an innocent discrepancy? Or was it deliberate deception? Listen carefully as many lessons can be learned from this case.
Other reference:
City of Houston Proposition A (Houston Freedom Act)
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 Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court decision R. v. Joe, 2026 NLPC 1024, where police arrested a man for dangerous driving. The man invoked his right to counsel but the officer did not facilitate contact with a lawyer. Instead, the officer demanded a roadside breath sample, which the man refused. Could the officer delay facilitating the man's access to a lawyer and proceed with roadside breath testing  even though the man had already been arrested for another offence, advised of his right to counsel, and expressly asked to speak to a lawyer? 
Other case references:
R. v. Commisso, 2020 ONSC 957
R.B. v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2021 BCCA 262
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 P.E.I. Supreme Court decision R. v. Gallant, 2026 PESC 31, where police rummaged through a man's trash bin at the end of his driveway, removing cigarette butts and coffee cups. DNA was collected from these items and compared to DNA retrieved from a murder scene more than 30 years earlier, which proved a match. This match was then used to obtain further judicial authorizations. The man was subsequently charged with first degree murder and improperly interfering with human remains. The man sought a court ruling that police breached s. 8 of the Charter — the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure — and he wanted the evidence excluded. Did the police conduct amount to an unreasonable search or seizure? Was collecting and analyzing the DNA from the items left in the trash to be used for comparison purposes even a search or seizure? Or did the man abandon any legitimate expectation of privacy in the items and his DNA on it by placing it out for curb side collection? 
PEI Minister of Justice and Public Safety order of an independent review.
Charlottetown Police Services response to Minister's order.
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. Reddick, 2026 QCCQ 4237, where police conducted a warrantless inventory search of an impounded vehicle. An officer opened the trunk, lifted the floor covering to inspect the spare-tire compartment, and found a knotted bag. The officer untied the knotted bag and found two more knotted bags nested within one another, which he also untied to discover 500 grams of heroin. The accused attacked the officer's so called 'inventory search' in several ways, suggesting it was an investigatory search for incriminating evidence masked as an inventory. Did the judge buy what the defence was selling? Or was the search valid, conducted for legitimate inventory purposes while also respecting the scope of such a search? What you learn from this case may help you defend your conduct in similar circumstances.  
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. Nikocevic,  2026 ONCJ 429, where a police officer's arrest was challenged on the basis that he did not comply with the statutorily binding public interest and court appearance factors found in s. 495(2) of the Criminal Code when making an arrest under s. 495(1). In cross examination, the officer was questioned about the limitations on his power of arrest. However, he did not expressly refer to the public interest or court appearance considerations. Did the absence of evidence from the officer specifically addressing s. 495(2) render the arrest unlawful? Or could the judge nevertheless conclude the arrest was lawful from an objective view of the evidence? Just what did the judge conclude?
Arrest without warrant by peace officer
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).
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com