Legal Issues In Policing

• E102| I.I.Oh-oh. Data, decision making & delay.

  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 2023-2024IIO Annual Report 2022-20232024-160: Saanich Police 2021-171: Vernon RCMP — Crown's Clear Statement2020-110: Williams Lake RCMP2024-265: Vancouver Transit Police2024-223: Abbotsford Police2024-156: Nanaimo RCMP2016-051: Prince George RCMP — trial judgement acquittalBCPS Media & Clear Statement — Stay of proceedings relating to charges arising out of the death of Dale CulverThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  1:20:13
• E101| No magazine, no problem. Handgun still an operable 'firearm'.

  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 rulingThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  22:42
• E100| Creativity, criticism & crime prevention. Parenting, policing & pragmatism.

  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 [email protected]

  --------  

  40:48
• E99| Mental illness, cognitive capacity & the right to counsel.

  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 rulingLower court sentencingThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  15:36
• E98| Case law classic. Location + shock + movement + safety ALERT ⇉ detention ⇉ car search.

  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 rulingThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  24:13

More Education podcasts

Trending Education podcasts

About Legal Issues In Policing