MULTIPLE CHARGES STAYED AFTER CHARTER APPLICATION ALLEGING MULTIPLE CHARTER BREACHES IS FILED11/23/2012 R. v. M.
Three men, including our client were walking away from a building in the direction of four police officers. The men were stopped, for no apparent reason, and separated. One officer questioned our client, and after the brief interaction it was determined that our client was under the influence of alcohol. The officer placed our client under arrest for being intoxicated in a public place pursuant to the Liquor License Act. The officer subsequently searched the client incident to arrest and found a quantity of crack cocaine in a cigarette package in the client’s pocket. Under s. 31(5) of the act, a police officer may arrest a person if it is necessary for the safety of any person. In a Charter application, Ms. Bristow submitted that the arrest was arbitrary because public safety was not at risk as the client was with other people, at least one of whom was told to go home, who could have looked after him. Mr. Bristow submitted that even if the arrest was not arbitrary, the search of the cigarette package found on the client was unreasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Caslake [1998] S.C.R. 51 at para. 22 has held that the purpose of a search incident to arrest is for officer safety reasons as well as where there is “some reasonable prospect of securing evidence of the offence for which the accused is being arrested” and to seize that evidence. The client was arrested for being intoxicated by alcohol and thus there was no reasonable prospect that evidence related to that offence would have been found in his cigarette package. It was further submitted that the search of the client’s cigarette package was not for officer safety in search of weapons. As such, Ms. Bristow submitted that the search of the client’s cigarette package, which allegedly contained cocaine, was unreasonable. Upon filing the Charter application detailing the multiple, deliberate breaches of our client’s constitutional rights, the Crown decided to stay all of the charges against our client. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes
0 Comments
R. v. C.
If you are charged with speeding and it is alleged that you are driving 50km/hr over the speed limit or more, you may also be charged with stunt driving under s.172 of the Highway Traffic Act. For a first offence, stunt driving carries a minimum penalty of a $2,000 fine and potentially up to six months in jail, or both. Further, the offender’s driver’s license may be suspended for a period up to two years. These penalties are higher on a subsequent offence. Our client was alleged to have been stunt driving. An officer allegedly saw two cars, including our client’s, driving at a high rate of speed. The officer believed they were racing and put on her lights to stop the vehicles but only our client stopped. One of the things that the prosecutor must prove on a speeding charge is that the radar or laser gun that the officer was using was working properly. Otherwise the court cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the device used accurately detected our client’s speed. The officer was the only witness for the Crown. During cross-examination it came out that the officer had not fully tested the radar gun. Before the cross-examination was finished, the Justice of the Peace dismissed both charges against our client. Speeding charges, no matter how fast it is alleged you are going, can be detrimental to a car owner as insurance companies care more about the conviction, not the speed. This win was very important to our client as he was the main breadwinner in his family since his father passed away. If he lost his ability to drive, or went to jail, his family would have collaterally been punished as well. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes |
AuthorHere, I post various success stories I have obtained for my clients in court. Archives
October 2019
Categories |
RSS Feed
