Legal Issues In Policing

• E132| Patients, paramedics, privacy & passive police presence. Potted plant or probing participant?

  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 66R. v. S.S., 2023 ONCA 130Hon. John Joseph ConnollyThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  30:01

  --------

  30:01
• E131| s. 10(b) implementational delay & failure to communicate.

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Dalia, 2025 ONCA 772 where police delayed providing an arrestee access to counsel until a house — the target of a search warrant — was secured. A sergeant expected an officer would learn via police radio when the home was secure and then facilitate access to a lawyer, while the officer was expecting further instruction from the sergeant before doing so. This miscommunication resulted in a s. 10(b) Charter breach. Listen and learn how you might avoid a similar situation. s. 10(b) Charter — "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention … to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right."Sentencing decision. (2023 ONSC 2114)Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  17:28

  --------

  17:28
• E130| Suspected drug deal, no seatbelt & a traffic stop. Pretext or proper police purpose?

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Jackson, 2025 ONCA 717 where police — after witnessing a suspected drug deal — stopped a vehicle, claiming a passenger was not wearing his seat belt. During the interaction, police saw cannabis shake (green specs and flakes) on the dashboard, smelled fresh marihuana and noticed an air freshener in the vehicle. When the man was about to be searched under Ontario's Cannabis Control Act, he fled, only to be chased down and arrested. A search incident to arrest turned up two ounces of fentanyl in his possession and other drugs in the vehicle. When this went to court the man alleged the police used the seatbelt infraction as a false pretext to arbitrarily detain him and search for drugs, and he wanted the evidence excluded. Was the traffic stop lawful? Or did the police use their Highway Traffic Act authority as a ruse — a false flag — to pull the vehicle over and search it? What you might learn may help you with future stops where you are suspicious of a vehicle's occupants while at the same time witness a traffic related infraction.  Sentencing reasons (R. v. Jackson, 2024 ONSC 2402).Ontario's Highway Traffic Act (HTA)s. 216(1) HTA:A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a vehicle, other than a bicycle, to stop and the driver of a vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop.s. 106(3) HTA:Every person who is at least 16 years old and is a passenger in a motor vehicle on a highway shall, (a)  occupy a seating position for which a seat belt assembly has been provided; and (b)  wear the complete seat belt assembly as required by subsection (5). Ontario's Cannabis Control Act (CCA)s. 12(1) CCA:No person shall drive or have the care or control of a vehicle or boat, whether or not it is in motion, while any cannabis is contained in the vehicle or boat.s. 12(2) CCA:Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to cannabis that, (a)  is in its original packaging and has not been opened; or (b)  is packed in baggage that is fastened closed or is not otherwise readily available to any person in the vehicle or boat. s. 12(3) CCA:A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that cannabis is being contained in a vehicle or boat in contravention of subsection (1) may at any time, without a warrant, enter and search the vehicle or boat and search any person found in it.Other reference:R. v. Kaddoura, 2009 BCCA 113.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  23:29

  --------

  23:29
• E129| A raised shirt, an underwear waistband & a baggie of blow. When is a search a 'strip search'?

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Samuels, 2025 ONCA 736 where police arrested a man for drug trafficking and searched him at the scene incident to arrest by lifting his shirt and removing a bag of drugs sticking out from his underwear waistband. The man's sweatpants were then lowered to his knees, exposing a pair of jeans underneath, so officer's could search his pockets. Police found a trove or drugs and drug-related evidence. Did these searches amount to a "strip search" such that special rules applied? Or were they more akin to a pat-down or frisk search, requiring no additional justification? Listen to learn on which side of this issue Ontario's top court fell? References:Lower court ruling (R. v. Samuels, 2023 ONCJ 596).Sentencing decision (R. v. Samuels, 2023 ONCJ 597).R. v. Choi, 2021 BCCA 410.R. v. Golden, 2001 SCC 83.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  26:52

  --------

  26:52
• E128| Are you smarter than a Supreme Court judge? Some might expect you to be.

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Wilson, 2025 SCC 32 where police arrested people present at a drug overdose after someone called 9-1-1 for emergency medical assistance. A search incident to arrest revealed modified handguns, firearm parts and ammunition inside a nearby vehicle. Was the arrest lawful? Or did the amendments made to the CDSA under the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act exempt a person present at the overdose not only from a charge or conviction for simple possession — as the text expressly provides — but also from arrest? If the arrest was unlawful, what should happen to the evidence? Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (2023 SKCA 106)Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act videoS.O.S.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  39:15

  --------

  39:15

More Education podcasts

Trending Education podcasts

About Legal Issues In Policing