R v S & B (2013)
The RCMP received informant information that B had been transporting drugs into Fort McMurray on the Red Arrow bus from Edmonton. They set up surveillance at the Fort McMurray bus depot. On the day of arrest B was met at the bus depot by S and they left together in S’s car. The police stopped the vehicle on the highway into Fort McMurray and seized $30,000 worth of heroin and oxycodone from B’s shoulder bag. During the preliminary inquiry, the investigating constable conceded to Mr Rice in cross-examination that the police had no information that B was carrying drugs on the day of arrest and they therefore did not have probable cause to stop the vehicle on the highway. The Crown Attorney was faced with the prospect that a trial judge might throw the drugs out of court. On the other hand, B was faced with the possibility that a trial judge might admit the drugs into evidence irrespective of the unlawful arrest. The Crown Attorney offered a deal whereby B pleaded guilty to simple possession of the drugs and was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment. All other charges were withdrawn. As Kenny Rogers might say – you’ve got to know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em.
R v A C & W (2013)
In this complex conspiracy and drug trafficking case Mr Rice successfully argued that the police could not lawfully seize text messages from a cell phone provider by using a production order under s 487.012 of the Criminal Code. The trial judge ruled that a wiretap authorization was required. The trial judge also ruled on a subsequent motion that the police could not seize data from a smartphone under the doctrine of search incidental to arrest. The police may seize a smartphone incidental to arrest but they are required to get a search warrant in order to search the contents. Mr Rice has written about these important new developments in the law on his Blog: On The Wire.
R v F M & F (2012)
Mr Rice’s client in this case was alleged to be a member of an identity theft ring in Alberta and British Columbia. The state asserted that his client was in possession of information obtained from the theft of computer transactions and identity data stolen during the break in of a business near Vancouver and that he was involved in the manufacturing of bogus credit cards. During pretrial preparation it became apparent that the Crown Attorney was withholding significant information that formed the basis of applications for search warrants. Mr Rice filed a pretrial disclosure motion under ss 7 and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights. The trial judge granted the application and when she began ordering disclosure of a large volume of specific materials the Crown Attorney stayed the charges.
R v A & K (2012)
In this wiretap case the defendants were charged with conspiracy, drug trafficking and a criminal organization offence. At the conclusion of the investigation the RCMP obtained arrest warrants and the defendants were arrested at their residences. The police did not have search warrants for the defendants’ homes nor prior judicial authorization to enter the homes to carry out the arrests. Such a warrant is called a “Feeney warrant”. The police entered the residence of Mr Rice’s client during the arrest and seized evidence from the house. Mr Rice brought a pretrial motion to exclude the evidence from the trial because the police were not authorized to enter his client’s house in breach of his reasonable expectation of privacy under ss 8 and 24(2) of the Charter of Rights. The trial judge granted the motion and the evidence was excluded from the trial.
R v C A & K (2011)
This complex drug conspiracy and criminal organization investigation spread from Vancouver through Calgary to Edmonton and Fort McMurray. It resulted in multiple parallel prosecutions in Calgary and Edmonton. The general investigation and wiretap component generated over half a million pages of documents and related data which made this the largest volume of disclosure in Alberta legal history up to that time. Mr Rice brought a pretrial motion to exclude from evidence various wiretap intercepts because the RCMP breached the terms of the wiretap authorizations when they failed to properly monitor the telephone calls. The wiretap authorizations required the police to monitor and listen to the telephone calls live. It was argued that the police violated the court orders when they used a feature on the interception equipment called “put away” which meant they were not properly monitoring the intercepted calls in real time. The trial judge granted the motion and ruled that the search and seizure was an abuse of process under s 7 of the Charter of Rights.