Archive for Possession of Drugs for the Purpose of Trafficking

R. v. N. W. & F. (2018)

The police received information from a confidential informant that W was trafficking drugs from a downtown apartment. A hallway surveillance camera was installed to capture people coming and going from the suite. The police then obtained a warrant to make two covert entries and observed large quantities of cocaine and marihuana in the suite. The police intensified surveillance on N, W and F who were frequently observed on the hallway camera. N was followed to a house where the police searched the garbage on multiple occasions locating documents that led them to believe the house was being used to store cash. The police then obtained a wiretap authorization and a warrant to install a video camera and a room probe in the downtown apartment. N retained Mr. Rice when all three men were charged with conspiracy, possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and a criminal organization count. A trial date has not been set.

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. P. & V. (2017)

A police officer¬†received information from a confidential informant that P and V were trafficking cocaine and the drugs were stored at the residence of P’s relatives. The police set up surveillance and obtained a tracking warrant to install a GPS device on P’s vehicle. P and V were seen at three different residences and followed to other areas of the city. The police believed the trips were to conclude drug deals. Based on the surveillance and informant information the police obtained three search warrants for the residences. When the police arrived at the residences to execute the warrants V was seen leaving one of them with a red shopping bag. He drove to another residence and went in with the bag. The police then entered and P was found sitting in the living room next to a red bag that contained cocaine and heroin. A pretrial challenge to the admissibility of the evidence obtained by execution of the search warrants will be brought.

R. v. T. (2016)

Mr. Rice has been retained by one of twelve defendants who were arrested following an investigation by the Alberta Law Enforcement Response Team (ALERT) and Calgary police. The police executed seven search warrants that resulted in the seizure of cocaine, fentanyl, methamphetamine and heroin valued at $5M. The investigation also consisted of a wiretap component that targeted specific suspects in the investigation. A total of 66 charges were laid including conspiracy, drug trafficking and organized crime offences. The police also seized property including luxury automobiles that is the subject of civil forfeiture proceedings. The police allege that a high level group was operating a sophisticated drug network throughout Calgary and other locations in Alberta. Investigators were quoted in the media as stating that the defendants include manufacturers, suppliers and street level traffickers. A trial date has been set for 2017 in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in Calgary.

R. v. D. G. & B. (2015)

The police had a motel under surveillance. They were on the look out for P armed with a Canada wide arrest warrant. Four men left a suite around midnight and ran to a waiting vehicle. One of the men matched P’s description based on clothing and general appearance. The police stopped the vehicle. But P was not in it. The police saw a bag sticking out from under the front passenger seat. They searched the vehicle without a warrant and seized the bag that contained over half a kilogram of cocaine, oxycodone and marihuana. They also seized a large quality of cash from B who was Mr. Rice’s client. All three men were charged with possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking. B was also charged with possessing the proceeds of crime. The defendants did not assert a privacy interest in the vehicle and did not challenge the lawfulness of the search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter of Rights. The Crown Attorney, however, had a formidable task to prove possession. Who knew the drugs were under the seat? Not even the driver could be tagged with constructive knowledge. He was not the registered owner of the vehicle. And there were no fingerprints on the bag to establish manual handling and a measure of control. The Crown Attorney was eventually left holding the bag when all charges were withdrawn on the trial date.

Page 1of 3: 1 2 3