by Jason Tarnow | Sep 14, 2015 | Crime, Police
RoadSafety B.C. took a huge step towards making our roads safer when, in January 2010, they implemented new legislation that made it illegal to use an electronic handheld device while driving. While frustrating for many motorists, the law was put in place to ensure that driver’s keep their eyes on the road where they belong. It isn’t something that anyone can really complain about – you can still talk on the phone if you have a hands free device with Bluetooth capabilities (as long as you aren’t a Novice driver, which is a Class 7 licence in B.C.). This law applies to everyone (although I frequently see RCMP officers using their computers while driving, and their cellphones) and is for everyone’s benefit.
But I’ve always had this nagging grudge against RoadSafety B.C. and our Provincial government for the relentless hypocrisy they apply with legislation. In this instance, it comes as a result of their assertion that talking on your cellphone is a huge distraction, and puts everyone on the roads at risk… but that having a breathalyzer installed on your car, which requires you to blow into it as you’re driving, poses no risk to the safety of road users.
The Ignition Interlock program requires certain driver’s to have a breathalyzer installed on their vehicle, at a cost of roughly $500 for installation, $125 a month for monitoring, $10 a month for insurance, and $500 for removal of the device at the end of your term – a pretty handsome chunk of change. The device, which you are required to blow (with a PASS reading) into to start your vehicle, is finicky and unreliable. Mouthwash, orange juice, windshield wiper fluid, and many other substances can interfere with the results of the test. But that isn’t the huge issue I have with it. My issue is with respect to the fact that you are required to blow into the device while you’re driving.
Yes, while you’re merging on the highway during a torrential downpour with a crying baby in the backseat, your little device will go BEEP BEEP BEEP, signalling that it’s time for you to provide another sample (about 5 minutes after you start driving, then 10 minutes after that, 15 minutes after that, and so on).
An argument can be made that you should pull over to provide a sample. Well, it isn’t always safe to do so – in fact, sometimes it’s illegal (on a highway for instance). So what happens if you just don’t blow into it? Well, this handy little device keeps track of all your samples, including the ones you don’t provide in an adequate time period (at your monthly calibration appointment, the information from your device will be downloaded and reviewed. An unsavoury record may require a lengthier term). Failure to provide a sample will cause your car alarm and hazard lights to go off, effectively scaring everyone within ear shot, and, yes…causing a distraction.
Yes, that’s right. The device that’s meant to save lives may actually cause some damage. Now I’m not saying that the entire program is a crapshoot. I fully agree that this device does serve its purpose in many respects. I would not dispute that on many occasions, it has prevented drunk drivers from getting on the road. But it is, as I said before, extremely hypocritical and contradictory to fairly new legislation. Interestingly enough, I haven’t encountered anyone yet who has been ticketed for using it while driving, and I wonder if there are any of those cases out there. Perhaps the argument that would come from RoadSafety B.C. would boast that if Ignition Interlock keeps one drunk driver off the road, saves one life, then it’s worth it. But the fact is that the Ignition Interlock device is a distraction to the driver who has to use it – plain and simple. An argument can even be made that it requires more attention for use than one might employ when answering a phone call. But RoadSafety B.C. and our Provincial Government won’t be taking their hands out of the pockets of B.C. motorists any time soon – the Ignition Interlock program is here to stay, whether you’re paying attention or not.
by Jason Tarnow | Aug 17, 2015 | Crime
In an all too familiar moment of shame, another RCMP affiliate faces both judicial and public scrutiny after being convicted of theft and breach of trust.
After a three week Trial, Jamie Tiller was found guilty in Chilliwack’s BC Supreme Court after the Jury of nine women and three men deliberated her fate over the course of 2 days.
Tiller was working as an Exhibit Custodian with the Chilliwack RCMP in 2011 when cash started to go missing from the Exhibit room.
What’s interesting about this case is that the entirety of the evidence called was circumstantial – none of it direct. The most damaging evidence was that in 2011, Tiller personally deposited denominations of cash that exactly matched the money that was missing from a particular Exhibit file: 42 $20 bills, 12 $10 bills, and 8 $5 bills. Two other deposits made into accounts linked to Tiller were found to be in exact denominations of what was missing from 2 other Exhibit files.
Tiller was ultimately found guilty of the theft of $2,800.00 – but she was originally charged with the theft of over $40,000.00 connected to 19 RCMP Exhibits. Crown Counsel ultimately conceded that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the thefts could be linked to Tiller.
Gurpreet Gill, Tiller’s lawyer, told the Court that there were serious flaws in the Crown’s case – in particular, the lack of any physical or direct evidence whatsoever. Further, she alleged that Don Reimer, another Exhibit Custodian, was more likely the culprit. She insinuated that Reimer was disgruntled after twice being overlooked for a promotion, and that he had said his Supervisor didn’t like him.
Aside from having to pay restitution to the City of Chilliwack, Tiller faces possible jail time. Justice Miriam Gropper ordered a Pre-Sentence and Psychological Report to be completed prior to sentencing, which is expected to take place in the fall.
by Jason Tarnow | Jun 24, 2015 | Crime, Legal Rights
Today, June 24, 2015, Vancouver became the first City in Canada to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries. It comes as yet another victory to those on the Cannabis Crusade, and another devastating blow to Federal Health Minister Rona Ambrose’s anti-weed agenda.
In an 8-3 vote, Vancouver City councilors decided to impose new regulations on the city’s rogue pot-shops. Mayor Gregor Robertson was quoted saying “we have this proliferation of dispensaries that must be dealt with.”
There are a number of regulations that are being proposed, including the following:
- Dispensaries will pay a $30,000 licensing fee;
- There will be restrictions on where dispensaries can operate, i.e.
not within a certain distance of schools, community centers,
and each other;
- Non-profit compassion clubs will be able to pay a licensing fee of only $1,000
Some may speculate that it is unfair that non-profit clubs pay such a small licensing fee compared to regular dispensaries – but Councilor Kerry Jang pointed out that Compassion Clubs offer other services such as psychological counselling and nutritional information/advice. They also assist people in transitioning from medicating with marijuana, to other treatment options (when possible). He suggested that the licensing fees collected from compassion clubs could be used to fund addiction treatment programs.
While this can only be considered a huge success to medical marijuana advocates, the clock has started ticking: dispensaries now have 60 days to apply for a licence. Some shops, particularly those located in the Downtown Eastside, the Granville Street Entertainment District, and those on Pender Street, will be forced to close.
There are a number of rules in place for dispensaries located in clusters. More information can be found here.
We still recommend keeping a criminal lawyer from team Tarnow on speed dial at all times – remember: freedom to toke isn’t a joke – you can still face criminal charges for the possession of marijuana.
More on this story as it develops!
by Jason Tarnow | Jun 23, 2015 | Crime, Criminal Attorney
RCMP Constable Kwesi Millington, one of 2 Mounties found guilty (four were charged – two were acquitted: Cst. Gerry Rundel and Cst. Bill Bentley) of perjury in the Braidwood Inquiry into the tasering death of Robert Dziekanski, was sentenced on Monday, June 22, 2015. He received a 30 month (2.5) year custodial sentence, meaning that he will serve his time in a Federal Penitentiary. Next to be sentenced will be Benjamin “Monty” Robinson, who resigned from the RCMP on July 22, 2012.
In delivering his sentence, Supreme Court Justice William Ehrcke dismissed Defence counsel’s request for a 1 year conditional sentence. He acknowledged that the Crown was seeking a prison term of 3 years. The maximum term of imprisonment for perjury under the Criminal Code is 14 years.
Ehrcke stated that the sentence must denounce the Constable’s actions, and deter other Officer’s from engaging in similar conduct. He noted that he decided a sentence on the higher end would be more appropriate, as Cst. Millington’s false testimony “stood in the way of getting of getting a true explanation” at the Inquiry into Dziekanski’s death.
We don’t often see many high-profile perjury cases like we have here. Over the past year or so, in Canada, the United States, and across the world, we have seen that the public’s trust in law enforcement continues to slide downwards. The result of this case is a prime example of why our suspicions surrounding the intentions of the police are indeed warranted.
But why is perjury considered to be such a serious offence by the Courts? With a maximum sentence of 14 years, it carries a higher penalty than many other obviously serious offences as defined within the Criminal Code. But it isn’t without good reason.
There is a difference between telling a lie, and telling a lie under oath. When you testify in Court proceedings, you are asked to swear, or affirm, that your testimony is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Further to that, as a Defendant, you are never compelled to testify. The choice to do so, or not do so, is one that must be discussed between you and your Vancouver criminal lawyer. Remember, when making a statement to the police, anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you in Court. This is why you should always consult experienced and seasoned counsel prior to making any admissions to law enforcement.
by Jason Tarnow | Jun 16, 2015 | Crime, Police
In a ground-breaking 7-0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that to restrict medical cannabis users to consuming cannabis only in “dried” form, is against theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Specifically, it violates a person’s right and liberty “in a manner that is arbitrary and hence is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
The legislation regulating marijuana is contained within the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Section 4 and Section 5 which prohibited the possession or sale of anything other than “dried cannabis” are now of no effect.
This comes as a great victory for marijuana advocates across Canada – and in particular, to Owen Smith, whose personal dilemma sparked the need for change within the legislation.
Medical marijuana users are now free to medicate in whichever way they find most beneficial, whether it be to feast on edibles (cookies, chocolate, brownies, etc – you can incorporate THC into almost anything!) vape (similar to smoking, but with a much less harsh effect on a person’s respiratory system), dab, etc. There are creams that contain THC that provide great relief to people with painful, chronic physical conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.
Not everyone is as thrilled as Owen Smith – Health Minister Rona Ambrose expressed outrage at the High Court’s ruling, stating the following:
“Let’s remember, there’s only one authority in Canada that has the authority and the expertise to make a drug into a medicine and that’s Health Canada,”
“Marijuana has never gone through the regulatory approval process at Health Canada, which of course, requires a rigorous safety review and clinical trials with scientific evidence.”
While Ms. Ambrose declared that the Federal Government will fight against the normalization of marijuana, it appears that for now, they’re in the weeds.
Heres a link to a new’s story done by Global News
The Cannabis Crusade continues, check back soon for more!
by Jason Tarnow | Jun 2, 2015 | Crime
In April 2008, the town of Merritt, B.C. was cast under a dark shadow when Allan Schoenborn murdered his 3 young children inside their family home while in the midst of a psychotic break.
After a 3 month Jury Trial in Kamloops, B.C., Schoenborn was found to be Not Criminally Responsible (“NCR”) for the 3 murders. (Link to original story) Since the time of his arrest he has remained at a Forensic Psychiatric facility in Coquitlam, B.C, and is monitored by the Forensic Psychiatrics Services Commission.
Just recently, however, he appeared in front of the B.C. Review Board (link for more info) and was granted escorted access into the community. Mr. Schoenborn must abide by a strict set of conditions when he is in the community, including abstaining from the use of drugs and alcohol, no access to any sort of weapon, no contact with a number of different individuals, consent to urine analysis testing whenever it is requested of him, and he must keep the peace and be on good behavior.
The decision of the B.C. Review Board is not one that was met without criticism – in fact, the overall response is a negative one. Citizens are concerned for the safety of the general public, and with Mr. Schoenborn’s well documented criminal history, it is difficult to sway the public’s collective opinion. The Mayor of Coquitlam, Greg Moore, has stated that he will urge council to have the Board re-evaluate their decision.
The problem that we are faced with here is one that turns its ugly head every time a prolific or well-known offender is afforded the privilege of re-joining society. While concerns will inevitably be raised, people must understand that a qualified, experienced and well-advised B.C. Supreme Court Judge made the determination that the Accused was NCR due to a mental disorder. The subsequent developments in his case, for example the most recent decision to allow him escorted visits into the community, come in response to the progress Schoenborn has made over the past several years.
It is important to note that determinations of NCR for homicide charges are not commonplace within the Canadian Judicial System. In fact, over the span of 2005 – 2012, there were only 13 homicide cases before the Courts where a Judge determined that the Accused was Not Criminally Responsible. This statistic serves to prove that these decisions are not made in haste. They are reserved for cases where an Accused person, by way of mental disease or disorder, does not possess the culpability or rationale to be held accountable for their actions. Once under the care of qualified doctors and mental health professionals, and aided by the appropriate medications, it would seem only natural that the offender would begin to improve. That is, after all, the point of having a person committed to a Psychiatric Facility – by stripping them of their rights and freedoms, we undertake the responsibility of developing a collaborative plan to treat their illness.
No one is handing Mr. Schoenborn a get-out-of-jail-free card. He is maneuvering his way through a system that is intended to identify, diagnose, educate, treat, and heal. A system that is designed to protect us – from each other, and when necessary, from ourselves.
