Show Notes
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses implied licence and the impact of a "NO TRESPASSING" sign. Does the posting of such a sign neuter the implied licence doctrine or does it merely state what the law already recognizes: a person entering onto another's property must have a legitimate reason for doing so? Doesn't implied licence provide members of the public, including police officers, the right to enter private property on legitimat...
More from Legal Issues In Policing
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Court of Quebec decision R. v. Reddick, 2026 QCCQ 4237, where police conducted a warrantless inventory search of an impounded vehicle. An officer opened the trunk, lifted the floor covering to inspect the spare-tire compartment, and found a knotted bag. The officer untied the knotted bag and found two more knotted bags nested within one another, which he also untied to discover 500 grams of he...
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Justice decision R. v. Nikocevic, 2026 ONCJ 429, where a police officer's arrest was challenged on the basis that he did not comply with the statutorily binding public interest and court appearance factors found in s. 495(2) of the Criminal Code when making an arrest under s. 495(1). In cross examination, the officer was questioned about the limitations on his power of a...
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Justice decision R. v. Angelone, 2026 ONCJ 559, where a police officer relied on an Automated Licence Plate Reader (ALPR) hit that a vehicle was stolen as grounds for arrest. When the driver's satchel was searched, police found carfentanil. In court, the driver argued: (1) his arrest was arbitrary because the ALPR hit did not provide the necessary grounds to arrest him u...
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Randall, 2026 ONCA 631, where a police officer stopped a driver for tinted windows and saw an unwrapped cannabis vape pen in plain sight near the gearshift. Thinking he had enough grounds under Ontario's Cannabis Control Act for a search of the driver and the vehicle, the officer ultimately discovered controlled substances, evidence of trafficking, ...
Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike responds to a listener's question about whether a search would still be lawful if an officer had multiple, simultaneous reasons for searching, and the court found some — but not all of the reasons — were objectively unreasonable? Would having an invalid reason in mind when searching nullify a coexistent valid reason for a search? References: R. v. Spice, 2026 SKPC 14R. v. Annett, 17 C.C.C. (3d) 332 (O...