R v L (2019)
An inter-city investigation was initiated by the Alberta Law Enforcement Response Team (ALERT) after the police received information from informants that L and M were involved in a drug trafficking operation. Surveillance teams observed L and M engaged in suspected drug transactions and the investigation expanded to include N and E who had a history of drug related activity. Various investigative tools were approved by court order to monitor the targets including tracking warrants and other warrants authorizing covert entry of residential premises and the production of pre-boarding screening information from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA). The surveillance eventually led the police to a house and a storage locker where video cameras recorded a person the police believed to be M. Guns and forged identification documents were located when the police covertly entered the premises. Mr Rice was retained by L who has been charged with multiple firearm and forgery offences.
R v B (2019)
- Firearm Offences, Possession of Drugs for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Proceeds of Crime
The Edmonton police received information from a confidential informant that B was using his business as a hub for drug trafficking. Live surveillance was conducted over numerous days in the vicinity of the main entrance. The police observed interactions between people coming and going that they believed were consistent with drug trafficking. During the investigation the police also located B’s residence and identified his motor vehicle. A search warrant was obtained for the business, residence and vehicle. B was stopped when driving his vehicle away from the residence and arrested. The business premises and residence were then searched after being secured by tactical teams. During the searches the police denied B the right to contact a lawyer contrary to s 10(b) of the Charter of Rights. A handgun, cash, drug paraphernalia and various quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine were seized from the business premises. A court date is pending.
R v M B & P (2018)
Mr Rice has been retained by P in this case involving multiple drug and firearm offences. The police set up surveillance at P’s apartment building as a result of receiving information from a confidential informant that he and M were trafficking drugs. Based on further information gathered during ongoing surveillance the police arrested P at a shopping mall and found a wad of cash and some marihuana when they searched him. The police searched P’s cell phone and found that recent calls had been made to B and M. B was then detained by the police shortly after leaving the apartment building. The police searched B’s vehicle and located two bags containing a kilo of methamphetamine and a 9mm hand gun. Two search warrants were executed at P’s apartment and M’s residence where the police found various quantities of cocaine, drug paraphernalia and a large amount of cash. A trial date has not been set.
R v K C & F (2016)
Mr Rice has been retained by one of the three defendants in this homicide case involving charges of second degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence and assault with a weapon. A motor vehicle with five occupants pulled into a strip mall at night and stopped in a secluded parking lot. D was in the backseat with his girlfriend. Another girl was in the front passenger seat. Two masked men armed with handguns and carrying baseball bats got out of a vehicle that stopped behind them. The girl in the front fled when the masked men closed in, opened the driver’s side rear door and began assaulting D with the bats. D was then fatally shot in the chest. The vehicle sped away from the scene to a condominium parking lot where D’s body was dropped on the pavement near a garbage bin shelter. The vehicle then disappeared into the night. The media reported that the shooting was fuelled by a drug debt. A date for a preliminary inquiry has not been set.
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.