R v S & B (2013)
The RCMP received informant information that B had been transporting drugs into Fort McMurray on the Red Arrow bus from Edmonton. They set up surveillance at the Fort McMurray bus depot. On the day of arrest B was met at the bus depot by S and they left together in S’s car. The police stopped the vehicle on the highway into Fort McMurray and seized $30,000 worth of heroin and oxycodone from B’s shoulder bag. During the preliminary inquiry, the investigating constable conceded to Mr Rice in cross-examination that the police had no information that B was carrying drugs on the day of arrest and they therefore did not have probable cause to stop the vehicle on the highway. The Crown Attorney was faced with the prospect that a trial judge might throw the drugs out of court. On the other hand, B was faced with the possibility that a trial judge might admit the drugs into evidence irrespective of the unlawful arrest. The Crown Attorney offered a deal whereby B pleaded guilty to simple possession of the drugs and was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment. All other charges were withdrawn. As Kenny Rogers might say – you’ve got to know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em.
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 & K (2001)
The two defendants in this case were charged with production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. The charges arose when the police raided a house in a residential Calgary neighbourhood armed with a search warrant. The police officer that obtained the search warrant relied upon expert opinion evidence from another police officer that the electrical consumption data was consistent with the cycles of a marijuana hydroponic operation (DRA). However, that police officer’s expertise was not disclosed to the judge who granted the search warrant. Mr Rice brought an evidence exclusion motion and the Crown Attorney countered with an application to produce the missing expertise. The trial judge ruled that the police ought to have produced the expertise to the judge who granted the search warrant and to allow the Crown to introduce it on the motion would defeat the prior authorization process under s 8 of the Charter of Rights. The case against Mr Rice’s client collapsed and he was acquitted of all charges.
R v L (1995)
The defendants in this case were charged with conspiracy and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The case went directly to trial in the Provincial Court of Alberta on the election of the defendants. Early in the trial the Crown Attorney objected to the disclosure of certain information on the grounds of a specified public interest under s 37 of the Canada Evidence Act. Mr Rice objected on the basis that the Crown Attorney was in the wrong court to assert the privilege. The proper court was the Federal Court under s 37(3)(a) of the statute. The trial judge in the Provincial Court adjourned the trial. The next move by the Crown Attorney was to bring the certification of the specified public interest before the Court of Queen’s Bench. Mr Rice objected again and Chief Justice W K Moore said that he had reservations whether the Crown Attorney had brought the application in the right court. Faced with the prospect of conducting a long and delayed application on the crowded docket of the Federal Court, the Crown Attorney withdrew the charges.