More and more legal knowledge is expected of officers investigating crime. Please do not view them as a substitute for legal advice. These are my opinions only, not those of any government agency.The legal arguments did not relate to 1-party consent.) Mr French, 2018 BCSC 825 possessed a restricted handgun, a prohibited assault rifle, a silencer for the handgun, and some prohibited magazines.
Even his remark about drug consumption was excluded because he had not received access to counsel before he made it. Because: If you delay access to counsel, or delay DRE exams, you won't always be so lucky.Defence pointed out that nobody tested the pills in the bottles to see if they matched the labels. If you suspect impairment by medication, perhaps you should get the medication tested.The trial judge found that they lacked sufficient reason to go in: Efforts to justify the intrusion into his residence under s.117.02 or 117.04 foundered.The officers had no reason to believe that the residence contained guns, nor that Mr French's current condition endangered anyone.The trial judge's decision highlights many common failings of police responses to ambiguous situations: This situation became complicated. I recommend that general duty officers and their supervisors read this decision. Ask themselves: "How should I handle a similar situation if it came up?
" This decision does not give you answers for every possible situation that will arise. But the decision does help you identify when you should enter a residence to check on the safety of people inside, and when you shouldn't. When he woke, he couldn't put the transmission into park. But on the passenger seat were several bottles of prescription pills.They said that they were "detained", and did not receive information about access to counsel. The decision doesn't say much about the work that went into setting up this conversation.I infer from the phrase "lawfully intercepted telephone call" (para 82), that the police applied for an authorization to intercept ("wiretap") the conversation, based on her consent. You get that if you ask a judge for it pursuant to s.184.2 of the Criminal Code.The judge will generally not admit evidence of what he told you at roadside before access to counsel. Security video cameras in police detachments continuously create disclosable evidence.Is the possibility of mouth alcohol a detail which you must "eliminate" before you can rely a "fail" result from a screening device? But you should go slow when mouth-alcohol is a real concern.An officer stopped Mr Notaro, 2018 ONCA 449 at about . The officer suspected he had alcohol in his body, and demanded that he blow into a screening device. The officer knew of nothing that raised it to a likelihood or a strong possibility that mouth-alcohol produced a false "fail".