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.
R v K & K (2015)
The two defendants were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a handgun without a licence. The police had the defendants’ apartment building under surveillance as a result of a related investigation. They saw R leave the building carrying a duffle bag and enter a taxi cab. The police stopped the cab and demanded that R provide his name and identification. R told the police his name. When he said he did not have identification on him the police searched the duffle bag and found the cocaine. R said the defendants gave him the bag and told him they would pick it up later. The police arrested R and found the handgun when the duffle bag was searched again at the police station. Mr Rice brought a pretrial motion to exclude the cocaine and handgun from evidence based upon a breach of his client’s reasonable expectation of privacy under s 8 of the Charter of Rights. The initial detention of R at the taxi cab was arbitrary and the search of the duffle bag was not incidental to a lawful arrest as R was not under arrest when the bag was searched. The second search at the police station was tainted as derivative of the first search at the taxi cab. The Crown Attorney then stayed all charges.
R v T & T (2015)
Mr Rice has been retained by one of the defendants on this major cocaine production case. The police received information from an informant about suspicious activity in a residential condominium suite. The police surreptitiously installed a video surveillance camera in the hallway outside the suspected suite. The video surveillance footage was then used to obtain a number of warrants authorizing the police to conduct covert entries into the suite and a video surveillance warrant to install other video cameras inside the suite. On an evidence exclusion motion, the trial judge ruled that a warrant was not required for the installation of the hallway camera because the tenant of the suite did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway under s 8 of the Charter of Rights. In another case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice came to a contrary conclusion. Concurrent trials on two Indictments in this case are scheduled in 2015.