Legal Issues In Policing

• E117| A tip, taxi, time & 10-20. Unreliable report or reasonable grounds for arrest?

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Miller, 2025 MBCA 48 where police — acting on an informer’s tip — arrested a man after stopping a taxi he was riding in. When the man was searched, police found cash, meth and two cellphones. Did the police sufficiently CORROBORATE the information? Was it enough for the what, when and where of the tip to be confirmed but not the criminal aspect related to it? Or should the police have done more investigation before making the arrest? Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  20:49

  --------

  20:49
• E116| Did apartment search warrant authorize entry to building's common areas to execute it?

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Supreme Court decision R. v. Dodd, 2025 BCSC 591 where police executed a search warrant at an apartment located in a 50 unit building. The warrant did not expressly authorize the police to move through the common areas inside the building to get to the door of the apartment, nor was permission sought from building management or another resident to enter. Did the police conduct amount to an unlawful search — thereby breaching the accused’s s. 8 Charter right — when they walked through the lobby, stairwell and hallway to arrive at the target suite’s door to execute the warrant? What the judge ruled might shock you!s. 24(2) ruling (2025 BCSC 592)Other cases mentioned: R. v. White, 2015 ONCA 508; R. v. Webster, 2015 BCCA 286; R. v. Unrau, 2025 ABCA 239; R. v. Evans, [1996] 1 SCR 8.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  23:57

  --------

  23:57
• E115| A CPIC check, failure to communicate & ca$hing in.

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision Shanthakumar Estate v. Canada Border Services Agency, 2025 ONCA 422 where a police officer continued an arrest made by CBSA of two seniors for breaching an undertaking condition based on a CPIC entry. Unfortunately, the charge related to the undertaking had been stayed but the CPIC entry had not been updated. It was only later learned, after the seniors had been transported to jail, that the undertaking had been vacated and the conditions were no longer in effect. The seniors — now plaintiffs in a civil action — sued the RCMP, CBSA & the police for negligence and arbitrary detention (under s. 9 of the Charter). Did the seniors have a case? Were their arrests unlawful? Did the police breach the standard of care expected of a reasonable officer in similar circumstances? Learning answers to these questions may help you with your decision making in like situations. Lower court ruling (2023 ONSC 3180).Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  20:21

  --------

  20:21
• E114| Taking inventory of an inventory search.

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike uses R. v. Cameron, 2025 ONSC 2621 as a springboard to take a deep dive into the topic of inventory searches. In Cameron, the police were found to be using the inventory search authority as a pretext for a criminal investigation tainted by racial bias. Listen to learn some tips about how you can Charter-proof your conduct in this area.Other cases referenced: Hunter v. Southam, [1984] 2 SCR 145; R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 SCR 51; R. v. Nicolosi, (1998) 127 C.C.C. (3d) 176; R. v. Wint, 2009 ONCA 52 leave to appeal refused [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 164; R. v. Strilec, 2010 BCCA 198; R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24; R. v. Harflett, 2016 ONCA 248; R. v. Dunkley, 2016 ONCA 597; R. v. Ellis, 2016 ONCA 598; R. v. Cuff, 2018 ONCA 276; R. v. Russell, 2018 BCCA 330; R. v. Knott, 2019 MBCA 97 leave to appeal refused 2020 CanLII 27701 (SCC); R. v. Meyers, 2022 NSCA 69; R. v. Arsenault, 2023 NSCA 10; R. v. Morrison, 2024 NBCA 35; R. v. Donovan, 2024 BCCA 213; R. v. Cooper, 2016 BCPC 259; R. v. Opikokew, 2022 SKPC 14; R. v. Russell, 2017 BCPC 60.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  50:08

  --------

  50:08
• E113| Don't miss the donut by focussing on its hole!

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Miller, 2025 MBCA 48 where police arrested a man after receiving a tip from a confidential informer, finding drugs and cash in his possession. The question to ponder was whether or not the police had the necessary grounds to make the arrest using the 3 C's — Was the information COMPELLING? Was the source CREDIBLE? And was the information CORROBORATED? Listen to learn how the Court of Appeal applied the test. You might just want to follow along to bolster your understanding in this area of law. Other case mentioned in the podcast upholding mandatory breath testing — R. v. Wright, 2025 SKCA 52. Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  20:36

  --------

  20:36

More Education podcasts

Trending Education podcasts

About Legal Issues In Policing