by Jason Tarnow | Feb 26, 2016 | Crime, Criminal Attorney, Legal Rights, Media, Police, Politics, Wheels Of Justice
Apparently, the truth is stranger than fiction, even when it’s like something straight out of George Orwells Nineteen Eighty-Four: injectable GPS tracking devices for notorious criminals.
That’s what Williams Lake City Council members voted on this week – unanimously. With a population of roughly 14,000 people, the community is now grappling with serious, unrelenting criminal activity. The Canadian Federal government keeps track of the statistics with respect to crime in municipalities across the country, sourced from Statistics Canada Crime Severity Index. While no one was surprised to see Williams Lake make the list (it has for many,many years) there was new concern this time around when the city was ranked at the top of the Index. Concern escalated when this past Monday, surveillance captured 2 males stealing another males bicycle at gun point in broad daylight. The brazen nature of the crime set alarm bells sounding.
It has been reported that out of the community of roughly 14,000 people. Between 20-100 of them are known to police as being prolific offenders – that is, individuals who are frequently at odds with the law. On paper, Williams Lake RCMP have 13 local residents on their prolific offender list, 7 of whom are currently behind bars. The rest are being closely monitored.
City Councillor Scott Nelson was quoted saying “For the privacy of few who don’t even believe in law, we need to use the technology to the benefit of the society as a whole,” when defending the Council’s unanimous vote for injectable GPS trackers. Indeed, having a GPS device located on an individual who is a high-risk to re-offend would probably result in peace of mind for a community ravaged by crime – but it comes at a high cost to a society that is increasingly leery of police presence.
As it stands, there is no legal authority for the use of injectable GPS tracking. GPS monitoring for other Canadian offenders is tightly regulated and requires judicial authorization. Civil liberties lawyers have responded to the Williams Lake City Council by advising that there is little to no likelihood that such a system would ever be found to be constitutional.
For now, Williams Lake will have to rely on good old fashioned police work and vigilant, community minded residents to do their part in keeping the small northern town safe.
by Jason Tarnow | Feb 12, 2016 | Crime, Criminal Attorney, Legal Rights, Media, Police, Politics, Wheels Of Justice
When a defence lawyer gets a new file that involves the search and seizure of evidence from their client, the first thing they will want to investigate is if the search was lawful. An unlawful search can often result in evidence being excluded from Trial. Laws surrounding search and seizure are ever-changing, but the fundamental rights laid out in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are enduring. Section 8 of the Charter protects Canadians from unreasonable search and seizure, which means that police are often required to obtain a warrant (judicial authorization) before proceeding to collect any evidence they wish to use at Trial.
There have been several pivotal developments in this area of the law recently, one coming from the Court of Appeal. Rodney Fedan of Kamloops, B.C., lost the appeal of his dangerous driving causing death conviction after he argued that his Charter rights were violated when RCMP collected information from his truck’s “little black box” without a warrant. The little black box I am referring to is known as a Sensing Diagnostic Module (“SDM”); they are commonly installed by manufacturers in passenger vehicles. Their main purpose is to monitor the condition/deployment of the airbags, but they have become increasingly more intelligent over the past decade, and are coveted by accident re-constructionists for the data they record and store. Re-constructionists can download the data from the “little black box” and use it to develop insight into the nature of a motor vehicle accident. In Mr. Fedan’s case, the 5 seconds of data recorded by the SDM immediately preceding the crash (which is generally all they record) was all that was needed to prove that Mr. Fedan was travelling at approximately 106 km/hour when he veered off of the winding road he and his passengers. The ensuing accident resulted in the death of 22 year old Brittany Plotnikoff and 38 year old Ken Craigdallie.
Fedan argued that his reasonable expectation of privacy was breached when RCMP officers seized the data from his SDM without a warrant. Unfortunately for him, 3 B.C. Court of Appeal Judges disagreed when they held that the Supreme Court Judge was reasonable in allowing the material into evidence at Trial.
It is crucial to note that Mr. Fedan was not aware that the SDM was capable of downloading and storing data that would be useful to the RCMP in such an investigation. Since he had no knowledge of the data’s existence, he could have no reasonable expectation over its privacy. This is in stark contrast to the level of privacy a person would expect to have over the information stored on their computer or cellphone – warrants are generally required to seize and search these devices (unless searching them is considered to be incidental to arrest).
When the case was originally heard in October 2014, Mr. Fedan was sentenced to 3 years in jail and was banned for driving from 3 years. He was not convicted of impaired driving after the blood samples obtained were ruled to be inadmissible.
Impaired driving cases are complex, and are taken extremely serious by the police and the Courts. If you are facing charges related to drinking and driving, contact Jason and David Tarnow for a free consultation. Our office is conveniently located in central Richmond, easily accessible from anywhere in the lower mainland.
by Jason Tarnow | Jan 4, 2016 | Crime, Criminal Attorney, Police
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015, RCMP made good on a threat to bust several pot dispensaries in the Nanaimo area of Vancouver Island.
At least 10 shops had received warnings in mid-November from the Mounties to cease all operations, or risk being raided, resulting in fines and/or arrests being made. It has been reported that 2 of those shops closed their businesses voluntarily upon request.
The RCMP declined to provide names of which dispensaries were entered into, but general managers of three shops located in Nanaimo confirmed to the media that they were the subject of search warrants.
Trees Dispensary, Phoenix Pain Management, and Natures Source Society all had search warrants executed at their establishments on December 1st. Phoenix Pain Management confirmed that two of their members, both senior citizens, were arrested on site.
The RCMP issued a statement advising that their motivation in raiding the dispensaries came as a result of public complaints that the shops were operating illegally and in an unsavoury manner. It is unknown if the RCMP will be seeking search warrants in order to enter and shut down the remaining businesses that are allegedly running illegally.
The choice to seek judicial authorization to raid the shops comes as a surprise to some, after Vancouver’s decision earlier this year to zone and licence dispensaries that are operating in compliance with certain guidelines. The City’s decision requires that all marijuana shops apply for a business licence as the first step in becoming regulated.
In October, the City announced that out of 177 applications, 11 had passed the first stage, and would be able to apply for permits. The hundreds of applications that did not pass the first stage were in contravention of various regulations, including their proximity to schools, community centres, and each other.
If you have had any criminal charges for controlled substances and/or drugs, do not hesitate to call our law office. We assist people in Metro Vancouver and all corners of British Columbia.
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 | Oct 3, 2013 | Criminal Attorney
The details of the new medical marijuana regulations are out – and soon, so should the supplies from home growers. Authorities say that the stricter rules are put in place to protect public safety, but the growing public confusion and differing opinions seem to be working against the Canadian government’s plans.
Rolled out on June 10th and officially published on June 12th in the Canada Gazette, the new regulations no longer allow medical marijuana users to grow their own plants at home. The federal government will also cease the production and distribution of the substance, leaving only licensed growers as the only source for medical marijuana users. Jeffrey Reisman, a well-known criminal lawyer in Toronto explains that one of the main factors that prompted the change in laws was that home growing was creating a lot of neighborhood crime. “In some cases we have organized crime operating grow ups, or targeting legal grow ups to steal product, which compromises the safety in a community”, says Reisman.
Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq said in a statement that the stricter regulations will be imposed to “protect public safety” and “strengthen the safety of Canadian communities.” Health Canada backed Aglukkaq’s argument, claiming that letting individuals grow their own marijuana since the Marijuana Medical Access Program began about 12 years ago has affected public health, safety and security. Within this period, authorized medical marijuana users ballooned to 30,000 from the original 500, according to the department.
Apart from producing more marijuana than they can use, some growers have allegedly abused the program by selling illegally or causing fire and flood hazards due to unregulated operations. More serious threats include theft and other criminal acts that have been spurred by uncontrolled production and distribution of the product.
Meanwhile, the issue has also reignited a wider clamor to loosen Canada’s marijuana laws in general, with nearly 70 percent of polled individuals supporting marijuana legalization – or at least decriminalization of possession of small amounts. According to Forum Research, which gathered the opinion of more than 1,000 Canadians age 18 and older, only 15 percent think that marijuana regulations should remain unchanged, while 13 percent are in favor of even stricter penalties.
Another sector that has been vocal even before the medical marijuana program was launched is the medical community, which has reiterated time and again that there is not enough evidence of marijuana’s medical benefits.
Some politicians were also not spared in the crossfire. Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau, in particular, earned mixed reactions when he professed not only his position in favor of legalizing marijuana – but also the fact that he had smoked marijuana at a dinner party. Roughly five years ago, Trudeau strongly opposed even just marijuana decriminalization.
Such “transformations” and developments are prompting even more people – politicians and average citizens alike – to speak out about the issue. While many eagerly await which side will prevail in the end, some observers are content enough seeing that marijuana laws are getting deeper, much more serious attention than ever.
Jeffrey Reisman is a well-respected Toronto Criminal lawyer, who focuses on all areas of criminal defence including assault cases, fraud, arson, burglary, murder and more. He is also an experienced bail hearing lawyer in Toronto.
by Jason Tarnow | May 16, 2011 | Criminal Attorney
Our lawyers at Tarnow Criminal Law are dedicated to providing their clients with the best legal representation available. When you retain the services of our firm, you can expect to receive frequent correspondence, individualized attention, and professional wisdom at each stage of your case. They can explain your rights under the law so that nothing is left unclear or misunderstood. In addition, they are dedicated to building strong and compelling cases, and doing whatever is necessary to ensure a desirable verdict is achieved.
There is no question that your choice in criminal defence lawyer is not just important, it is personal. That is why we offer a free initial consultation to discuss your particular charges, giving you the opportunity to ask a skilled criminal defence professional any questions you have on your mind – and in a confidential setting. It’s important to take the opportunity to meet with a lawyer and go over the facts of your case before hiring one. By addressing your immediate concerns and helping you better understand the situation, we hope to make the decision regarding your legal counsel that much easier to make. It’s an opportunity to meet the lawyer who will be protecting your rights and freedom in the coming months.
