by Jason Tarnow | Feb 25, 2016 | Crime, Legal Rights, Media, Police
It’s called StarChase, and it’s the newest technology being utilized by the Delta Municipal Police Force in their ongoing battle to track, intervene, and arrest drivers trying to dodge law enforcement. They are the first police force in Canada to use the product, with the Abbotsford police not far behind (they are awaiting installation). It works like this:
A GPS “cannon” (launching device) is installed on a police car. The projectiles are equipped with a GPS tracking device, referred to as a GPS Projectile, which provides updates on its location every 3-5 seconds. In the event of a high speed chase, the officer can launch a GPS Projectile (similar to a dart) which will adhere itself to the fleeing vehicle. At this point, it is no longer necessary for the police to engage in a dangerous high-speed chase. The GPS updates will provide the location of the vehicle to police, and officers can therefore be one step ahead of the culprits, intervening only when it is safe to do so. Police are hopeful that this innovative approach will prevent the injuries and deaths from accidents that come as a result of high speed chases between law enforcement and evasive assailants.
If you’re seeking a thrill, try GTA on your Play Station instead of attempting the real thing. If this advice is coming to you just a bit too late, and you’ve been charged with dangerous driving, obstructing police, or any other criminal charges, contact the offices of David and Jason Tarnow. Charges of this nature are extremely complex and serious, and can lead to driving suspensions, large fines, and even jail. Before you consider handling these sorts of criminal charges on your own, slow down, put it in reverse, and call Tarnow.
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 | 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 | Apr 23, 2015 | Legal Rights, Politics
A student from Russia who has been studying in B.C. will find out on Wednesday if he will be ordered to leave Canada as a result of his recent criminal convictions. Vladislav Anautov, 23, plead guilty in Kamloops Provincial Court to an assault on his girlfriend that took place on February 27 in the off-campus apartment they shared together. The young man was free on Bail pending the outcome of his sentencing hearing – until the RCMP found his girlfriend hiding in his closet while checking to ensure he was abiding by the Court imposed conditions of his Bail (including a condition of having no contact with the victim). Anautov was promptly arrested and placed in custody. On Monday, April 20, 2015, he plead guilty to breaching the terms of his Bail order.
Since Anautov is in Canada on a student visa, an investigation was launched by the Canadian Border Services Agency to determine his immigration status. It has been reported that Vladislav will leave Canada on his own free will, which the Crown hopes to supplement with an Order from the Court. The Crown hopes to avoid having an immigration hearing, which could be both time consuming and costly.
A lot of people will read this article and wonder why the young woman is still in contact with her alleged abuser. You may be surprised to learn that this is not an uncommon occurrence in assault files. It is partially related to the fact that there is a common misconception about the charge process in Canada. Once you have called the police about an incident and they have become involved, the charge approval process is, for the most part, out of your hands. Individuals do not charge other individuals. Police agencies forward the results of their investigation to the charge approval sector of Crown Counsel, who will decide if there is enough evidence to charge the Accused (likelihood of conviction). That is why the style of cause in criminal proceedings heads the Queen against the Accused. For example:
R. v. John Smith à R stands for Regina, which represents our Queen (even though her name is Elizabeth. When we have a King, the R represents Rex).
We are a commonwealth country, and are sovereign to the (for now) Queen.
This is why domestic assault files are often difficult to prosecute. Again and again we see the complainant (the victim) wanting to withdraw from the process, or, completely refusing to participate in any part of said process that will lead to trouble for the Accused. It is very common to see an Accused person breach the terms of their Bail for this very reason – because both parties want to remain in contact.
To sum it up: If you have been charged with assault stemming from a domestic incident, and have had a no-contact order put in place as a condition of your release, do not contact that person directly or indirectly. If they send you a text, do not respond to it. Do not answer their calls, or speak to them through a 3rd party – just call us.
by Jason Tarnow | Mar 24, 2015 | Crime, Legal Rights
Up in smoke: don’t get baked by baking (yet)
On Friday, March 20, 2015, B.C. lawyer Kirk Tousaw attended the Supreme Court of Canada to argue the encroachment of certain provisions of the Controlled Drugs & Substances Act on a person’s ability to consume medical cannabis.
As it stands, the only way in which medical marijuana can be legally consumed is through smoking or vaping. This posed a huge issue in 2009 for Mr. Owen Smith, a Victoria resident who baked cannabis-infused cookies and produced cannabis-infused cooking oils for members of the local Cannabis Buyers Club. Mr. Smith was charged with trafficking for his production of over 200 cookies and oils after a large volume of paraphernalia was found in his apartment. He was acquitted of all charges after the B.C Supreme Court ruled that the criteria within the annex of Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, part of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act governing rules of consumption, was indeed unconstitutional.
The B.C. Government appealed the ruling of the Supreme Court in the B.C. Court of Appeal. Unfortunately for the Fed’s, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision in a 2-1 split. Because of the split decision of the Court, the Government was automatically granted Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada.
One of the main focuses of the pro-cannabis argument to allow for the consumption of edibles and the like, circles around the fact that not all marijuana users wish to be smoking day in and day out. For those suffering from conditions that include chronic pain or discomfort, the act of smoking can be unpleasant and can result in unwanted side effects. Aside from that, it also allows consumers to dose while being discreet (apparently not everyone loves the smell of freshly burned herb) which should satisfy roommates, neighbors, and landlords.
Furthermore, studies have suggested that edible marijuana products can leave you with a much more desirable high than you get with smoking. The effects also last much longer, which leads to users having to medicate on a less frequent basis.
We still do see people charged with criminal offences that are marijuana-related in Vancouver and its surrounding suburbs of Richmond, Surrey, and beyond. However, this is the first time that a medical marijuana matter of contention has made it to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is, without a doubt, going to be a landmark decision that will impact medical cannabis users, producers, and suppliers.
by Jason Tarnow | Oct 7, 2013 | Crime, Legal Rights
In British Columbia, and across Canada, we pride ourselves in being known as multicultural, diverse, and tolerant. In particular, we encourage the celebration of our Aboriginal peoples’ heritage and culture – an ideation that has deep roots in our history. The issues surrounding the treatment our First Nations’ peoples are as delicate as they are primary; although we have made great strides over the past decade, we still have a long way to go before we declare success. An area that is often over looked by the general public, however, is how Aboriginal people are handled in our Judiciary system.
For example, Aboriginal people account for approximately 2.8% of the entireCanadian population – a fairly small percentage. Therefore it may be surprising to learn that they account for a whopping 18% of Canada’s federal inmates (according to the Correctional Service of Canada (“CSC”)). The CSC has stated that they are committed to developing a National Strategy that will specifically target the unique considerations that must be taken when dealing with Aboriginal offenders. They place specific importance on interventions for these offenders by developing and implementing care strategies for individuals suffering from substance abuse, and other addiction issues. Unfortunately, this likely means removing individuals from homes on reserves, which are often located in remote communities, without the resources to deal with the serious medical issues that accompany substance abuse problems. It is also an idea that is met with resistance from the First Nation’s people, which is understandable.
The lack of ways and means to address addiction issues early on often leads to “intervention” (i.e. the arrest and detainment of an Aboriginal offender) at the point where there is little that can be done – other than to have the individual slowly manoeuvre their way through our ever-clogged Court system. It is in our sophisticated and couth judicial system, that the unique needs of the Aboriginal offender are often neglected.
So by this point you’re probably wondering what justice-specific initiatives our Government is taking in order to properly deal with this issue. Well, there were a couple of legislative actions taken back in the 90’s, a few Directives from various commissions, and even an Annex or two. But it seems pretty obvious that these attempts can’t be labelled as anything other than futile.
Probably, though, the most noteworthy stride made by the Canadian Government towards respectfully handling the issue of Aboriginal offenders in our penal system, is the creation of Gladue Court.
Essentially, if you meet the specific requirements (Aboriginal Heritage being key, among others) you can have your case directed to Gladue Court, where the sentencing Judge will take into consideration the specific and unique circumstances of you being Aboriginal (discrimination, residential schools, etc).
The name of the Court is derived from the landmark 1999 Supreme Court of Canada case known as R. v. Gladue. The main principle of the case is that other reasonable alternatives should always be considered prior to a custodial (jail) sentence. This could mean serving a sentence in the community, counselling, and rehabilitation in relation to drugs and alcohol abuse. If the sentencing Judge determines that a jail term is necessary due to public interest, he or she must still take the sentencing provisions of Gladue into account, which could result in a lighter custodial sentence.
There are a few flaws, though. One major pitfall is that an individual cannot be considered for Gladue Court if they are in custody. If you’ve been detained without Bail, or can’t obtain the necessary resources to make Bail, you’re considered ineligible. Another disadvantage is that the principles of Gladue are still improperly applied in many instances. It isn’t a system that is necessarily taken advantage of by those who may benefit from it, simply due to a lack of knowledge surrounding its existence.
We are fortunate enough to have a Gladue Court in Vancouver, British Columbia, which is available to residents in Richmond, New Westminster, Surrey, Delta, and so on. There are several other Gladue Courts located in Eastern Canada, for example, in Toronto, Ontario. It is likely that this Court will expand as the demand grows for services – and the demand can only grow, the system can only flourish, through knowledge and education.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence and would like to know if you meet the necessary prerequisites to be considered for Gladue Court, it is important to have an experienced and seasoned criminal defence lawyer there to assist with the process. Please do not hesitate to contact us at Tarnow and Company where we are proud to offer extensive knowledge surrounding Gladue Court procedures.
