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.
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.