by Jason Tarnow | Jun 28, 2017 | Crime, Criminal Attorney, Legal Aid, Legal Rights, Police, Wheels Of Justice
What you say CAN and WILL be used 
you (seriously)!
I think it is important to discuss the importance of exercising constitutional rights/freedoms. In particular, the right to remain silent when being questioned by law enforcement about alleged criminal activity.
Why does this seem to be the one freedom that no ordinary citizen wants to evoke? It is understandable of course – to a point. Yes, you want to be respectful and cooperative to with the police in the course of their investigation. This means conducting yourself maturely and appropriately, and politely advising the officer that you wish to exercise your right to silence – meaning you do not wish to have any further discussions whatsoever.
And you definitely are not taking the lie detector test.
There is a difference between cooperating and conceding. Exercising your constitutional right to remain silent does not indicate guilt – it does absolutely nothing except protects your best interests, liberty, and quite literally your freedom (depending on circumstances).
Assuming guilt as a result of silence is what’s known as an adverse inference – and in the realm of criminal justice in Canada, an Accused person is protected from such an insinuation. So, there really is no downside to the advice that seems to evade people during times of crucial importance: don’t talk to the police. Remain silent. Protect your best interests. Seek legal advice. Trust the guidance you receive from seasoned legal professions. We have dedicated our livelihood to protecting the fundamental and inherent rights awarded to every single individual in this country – but in order to obtain the best possible outcome, you, the client, must have confidence in your legal counsel’s ability as your advocate.
This is best demonstrated by being mindful of the first piece of advice you will receive: DO. NOT. TALK. TO. POLICE.
Instead, advise them that any dealings they wish to have with you should be done through your criminal defence lawyer. Once retained, a criminal lawyer becomes the conduit between you and the police. This not only ensures that all communications will be appropriate and methodical – it also provides a new point of contact for the police generally.
Here is a short (non-exhaustive) list of circumstances under which seeking legal advice is strongly recommended:
1) You have been arrested and charged with a criminal offence;
2) You have been contacted by the police for a statement, interview, etc and you are unsure if you are being looked at as a suspect;
3) There is a warrant out for your arrest; or
4) You have reason to believe you will be investigated, arrested, or charged in the near future.
We are conveniently located in Richmond, B.C. only a few steps away from Brighouse Station on the Canada Line, which brings you from various locations in Metro Vancouver in 20 minutes. We service all areas of the lower mainland (including but not limited to Surrey, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, North Vancouver, and Abbotsford) the interior of B.C. (including but not limited to Cranbrook, Kelowna, Kamloops, and Salmon Arm), Northern B.C. (including but not limited to Prince George, Prince Rupert, and Quesnel) and in the Yukon Territory where we offer services in Whitehorse, Dawson City, and Old Crow.
Whether the crime is violent (assault, aggravated assault, sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, manslaughter, murder), financial (fraud over/under $5,000, possession of stolen credit cards, forgery), or falls under any other category, the experienced criminal defence lawyers at Tarnow Law Offices are well equip and ready to help navigate you through this difficult time from start to finish.
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.
