Legal Issues In Policing

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike offers a Christmas message for all law enforcement officers. Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Carignan, 2025 SCC 43 where a police officer arrested a man under s. 495 of the Criminal Code. At trial, in the Court of Quebec, the man wanted a voir dire held to determine the lawfulness of his arrest because — he claimed — the police did not comply with s. 495(2) and he sought the exclusion of an incriminating statement he made to police under s. 24(2) of the Charter. But the judge refused to hold a voir dire, concluding s. 495(3) rendered an arrest that did not comply with s. 495(2) lawful in a criminal proceeding, including one in which the arrestee was on trial. The man was convicted of sexual assault and he was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment and placed on probation for a period of two years. He appealed to Quebec's highest court, which ruled the trial judge erred. In its view, s. 495(3) did not prevent an accused from challenging the legality of their arrest. By refusing to hold a voir dire, the judge deprived the man of the opportunity to allege and establish non-compliance with s. 495(2). The man's appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered. The Crown then appealed the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision to Canada's top court, where all nine judges heard the matter and rendered an unanimous decision. Listen to learn what every law enforcement officer should know about the effect non compliance with s. 495(2) has on the lawfulness of an arrest made under s. 495(1) and its interplay with s. 495(3). Criminal Code power of arrest:495 (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant(a) a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence(b) a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence; or(c) a person in respect of whom he has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant of arrest or committal, in any form set out in Part XXVIII in relation thereto, is in force within the territorial jurisdiction in which the person is found.Limitation(2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for(a) an indictable offence mentioned in section 553,(b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction, or(c) an offence punishable on summary conviction,in any case where(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to(i) establish the identity of the person,(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence, may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.Consequences of arrest without warrant(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a peace officer acting under subsection (1) is deemed to be acting lawfully and in the execution of his duty for the purposes of(a) any proceedings under this or any other Act of Parliament; and(b) any other proceedings, unless in any such proceedings it is alleged and established by the person making the allegation that the peace officer did not comply with the requirements of subsection (2).Other provisions mentioned in the podcast: ss. 493, 49Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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]

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]

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]