R v D H & K (2010)
The three defendants in this conspiracy and drug trafficking case were denied bail and remanded into pretrial detention. The Crown Attorney then withheld disclosure for almost two years. While the case languished in the Provincial Court of Alberta and the defendants languished in the Edmonton Remand Centre, it came to light that the police officer who had sworn the affidavits for the wiretap applications had committed suicide. Mr Rice was contacted by H who was alleged to be the “food boss” responsible for the distribution of cocaine to street level dealers. Mr Rice brought a bail application on behalf of H that was granted in the Court of Queen’s Bench. After H was released from custody, Mr Rice brought a motion for legal costs in the Court of Queen’s Bench. After that application was granted, and the government was ordered to pay the costs of the defence, the Crown Attorney stayed the charges.
R v C & B (2010)
In this conspiracy to commit murder case, Mr Rice acted for B who was alleged to be the trigger man in retribution for the previous shooting of C on the sidewalk outside an Edmonton restaurant. The police obtained a wiretap authorization to intercept the telephone calls of C. B was caught on the wire. During the preliminary inquiry, one of the detectives conceded under cross examination by Mr Rice that the Edmonton Police Service had extensive records about B and his association with C. It became clear that B ought to have been named as a known person in the wiretap authorization under s 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code as the interception of his private communications would have assisted the investigation. Faced with a flawed case, the Crown Attorney offered a sweetheart deal whereby B pleaded guilty to a firearm offence, was sentenced to time in custody and immediately released from pretrial detention. All other charges were withdrawn.
R v N T & J (2009)
An undercover police officer made a telephone call to a suspected drug dealer posing as a buyer. He set up a meeting and bought cocaine from the dealer in the parking lot of a Calgary gas station. The police then set up surveillance on the dealer and his associates and followed them throughout the city while they met briefly with people at strip malls and convenience stores. The police believed that the meetings were consistent with drug transactions. The surveillance eventually led to an apartment building. The police obtained a search warrant. When they smashed through the door of the apartment, J bolted for the sliding glass doors and jumped from the balcony in his stocking feet. N and T were arrested in the living room. The police found cocaine and cash on the coffee table. J was arrested a short distance from the building. The police said that footprints in the snow led them to him. J was not the tenant of the apartment. He retained Mr Rice. At the conclusion of the preliminary inquiry, Mr Rice argued that mere presence in the apartment could not in law put J in joint possession of the cocaine. The preliminary inquiry judge agreed and J was discharged.
R v S & W (2008)
The police received an informant’s tip that S was staying in a Medicine Hat hotel and that he was in town to close a drug deal. They obtained guest registration information from the hotel management and then applied for a general warrant to conduct a surreptitious entry. That kind of general warrant is called a “sneak ‘n peak” warrant. The police found cocaine in a suitcase, set up surveillance and waited. S returned and entered the room. The police then knocked on the door. W answered and both defendants were arrested. W retained Mr Rice. The defendants elected for trial by a judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta. The Crown Attorney argued that both men were in joint possession of the cocaine. Mr Rice argued on behalf of W that one of the questions not answered in the evidence was: Who had the key to the room? The trial judge concluded that there was a reasonable doubt whether W was in control of the room and he was therefore found not guilty on both charges.
R v L B & L (2007)
During trial preparation in this conspiracy and drug trafficking case it was learned that the Crown Attorney was withholding information that was relevant to the credibility and reliability of a Calgary police officer who was involved in the investigation. Mr Rice, and counsel for the two co-defendants, brought a joint application for disclosure of the information under ss 7 and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights. The evidence on the motion showed that the police officer had provided an expert opinion to the affiant for the wiretap authorizations regarding investigative necessity. In granting the motion, the trial judge ruled that the expert police officer was imbued in the investigation and that the withheld information was relevant. The information that was then disclosed revealed that the expert police officer was addicted to crack cocaine during the time that he provided the opinion about investigative necessity. He had been investigated by the RCMP under the Code of Conduct and subsequently resigned. This information was then used in a subsequent motion to exclude the wiretap evidence under ss 8 and 24(2) of the Charter of Rights.