Legal Issues In Policing

• E108| Vigilant cops, a video camera & an alleged Charter violation. A provincial court POV.

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Provincial Court decision R. v. Wiebe, 2025 MBPC 35 where the police  installed a fixed pole camera in an alley accessible to the public to video record — for a month — the back lane and part of the concrete approach of a detached garage. Information noted by the police included the makes, models and licence plates of vehicles attending the garage; the time of day of the comings and goings; people who attended, who they were attending with, the type of clothing worn, and characteristics such as hair style, facial hair and tattoos. Did the warrantless use of the pole camera itself amount to a Charter search such that s. 8 was engaged?  Winnipeg Police Service Press Release.R. v. Desylva sentencing update (2025 ABKB 262).Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  22:26
• E107| A criminal, a K9 & correcting a confusing Charter conclusion.

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Court of Appeal decision R. v. Jaramillo, 2025 BCCA 77 where police brought a K9 along to arrest a man on an outstanding aggravated assault warrant. The dog never bit or touched the man, but barked. The man — a convicted criminal — said he was scared during the arrest. The judge found the use of the K9 breached the man’s s. 7 Charter right to “life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” and reduced his sentence by 11 months to account for this Charter violation. When the Crown appealed the ruling, BC’s top court weighed in on the matter. Did the dog display violate s. 7 or was the judge way off-base? Decision on Sentence (2024 BCPC 263)Decision on Sentence in a different matter (2021 BCPC 225)BC Provincial Policing Standard 1.4 Principles for Standards for Police Service DogsBC Provincial Policing Standard 1.4.1 Police Service Dogs — General RequirementsBC Provincial Policing Standard 1.4.1 Police Service Dogs — Threshold and Circumstances of Police Dog UseThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  28:50
• E106| A prisoner, potty & privacy. Constitutional protection for the ‘daily constitutional’?

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Provincial Court decision R. v. Bajwa, 2025 BCPC 43 where police monitored and recorded — by video surveillance — a man using the toilet in cells for less than a minute. Although no genitalia was observed, his buttocks and thighs were videoed but there was no blurring, pixilation or blacking out of his toilet use, nor was he offered a privacy gown or shield. Did this videoing amount to an intrusion into the man’s privacy such that his right under s. 8 of the Charter — to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure — was breached? If yes, were the remedies of a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence in order?   Decision on remedy (2025 BCPC 44)BC Provincial Policing Standard 4.1.1 Video Surveillance Recording in Police BuildingsToronto Police Service Policy — Privacy ShieldsThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  22:26
• E105| Charter turns 43! Evidence, admissibility & exclusion.

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike celebrates the Charter’s 43rd birthday! On April 17, 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. Listen to learn about some of the early discussion on the remedy provisions, from s. 26 to s. 24 to s. 24(1) and (2).Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  9:53
• E104| Delaying the right to counsel. Routine practice or reasonable postponement?

  Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Alberta Court of King's Bench decision R. v. Tierney, 2025 ABKB 223 where police delayed providing a man access to counsel for more than 16 hours after his arrest, claiming it was justified while seeking a search warrant for fear evidence might be destroyed. The police also failed to bring the man before a justice, waiting about 33 hours to do so. How did the judge feel about these delays after Crown conceded Charter breaches. Was evidence supporting serious charges excluded? This case provides a good summary of the case law and things a police officer needs to think about if delaying access to counsel.  Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

  --------  

  22:53

More Education podcasts

Trending Education podcasts

About Legal Issues In Policing