Legal Issues In Policing

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike responds to a listener's question about whether a search would still be lawful if an officer had multiple, simultaneous reasons for searching, and the court found some — but not all of the reasons — were objectively unreasonable? Would having an invalid reason in mind when searching nullify a coexistent valid reason for a search? 
References:
R. v. Spice, 2026 SKPC 14
R. v. Annett, 17 C.C.C. (3d) 332 (Ont. C.A.) leave to appeal refused, [1985] 1 S.C.R. v.
R. v. Dreyer, 2008 BCCA 89
R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24
R. v. Caprara, 2006 Canlii 18518 (ONCA)
R. v. Chubak, 2009 ABCA 8
U.S. v. Hollaus, 2022 BCCA 272
R. v. Russell, 2017 BCPC 60
R. v. Dunkley, 2016 ONCA 597
R. v. Cuff, 2018 ONCA 276
R. v. Cooper, 2016 BCPC 259
R. v. Ellis, 2013 ONSC 1494
R. v. Daigle, 1994 CanLII 214 (BCCA)
R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51
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 Edmonton Police Service v. McKee, 2026 SCC 24, where a police detective's expunged discipline record became an issue at trial. Did a provision in Alberta's Police Services Regulation removing a misconduct finding from an officer's disciplinary file also render the misconduct non-disclosable for criminal law purposes? Or did the expunged record still need to be disclosed by Crown to the accused because it may have been relevant to the detective's credibility, reliability or conduct during the investigation?
See also:
R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3 
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326
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. Hayatibahar, 2026 ONCA 507, where police arrested two men for impaired driving following a fatal crash. The catch? There was only one driver. Was the arrest of both men for an offence that could only have been committed by one of them justified? And was a search of the accused's pockets at the hospital some two hours after his arrest reasonable? Or was the arrest unlawful resulting in s. 8 (unreasonable search) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention) Charter breaches? 
Related lower court cases:
2022 ONSC 1281 (Charter application)
2022 ONSC 3692 (reasons for judgment)
2022 ONSC 5154 (reasons for sentence)
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 Provincial Court decision R. v. Spice, 2026 SKPC 14, where a police officer searched a truck after arresting its driver for impaired. The officer testified he searched the truck — which was being impounded — as an incident to arrest to ensure there was nothing that would be dangerous to the tow truck driver. During the search, the officer saw a box of watermelon vodka. At trial, the accused wanted this observation, along with the certificate of analysis of his breath samples, excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. As for the vehicle search, the Crown submitted the officer was permitted to search the vehicle as an incident to arrest to discover evidence that may be used at the accused's trial. Was the search lawful as an incident to arrest? Could the Crown save the search by providing an objectively reasonable purpose for it that was not articulated by the officer? Listen carefully as this case underscores the importance of not only knowing your authorities but also the reasons for which they may be exercised. 
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses implied licence and the impact of a "NO TRESPASSING" sign. Does the posting of such a sign neuter the implied licence doctrine or does it merely state what the law already recognizes: a person entering onto another's property must have a legitimate reason for doing so? Doesn't implied licence provide members of the public, including police officers, the right to enter private property on legitimate business so long as they do not otherwise exceed the scope of the doctrine? What effect, if any, would a "NO TRESPASSING" sign — standing alone — have on this longstanding common law invitation to knock? Listen as Mike tries to make his case. 
Cases referenced:
R. v. Evans, [1996] 1 SCR 8
R. v. Singer, 2026 SCC 6
R. v. Skerratt, 2003 BCPC 456
Larkin v. Bourque, 2026 NSSC 75
Entick v. Carrington (1765), 2 Wils. K.B. 275
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com