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 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.
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 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.