by Jason Tarnow | Apr 15, 2016 | Crime, Criminal Attorney, Legal Rights, Media, Police, Wheels Of Justice
A man from Saanich, B.C., has learned that he will not face charges of sexual assault stemming from complaints received from 4 women.
The man was arrested and a criminal investigation was pursued by RCMP and several senior Crown prosecutors. Upon reviewing the available evidence, assessing the credibility of the complainants, and considering possible defences that could be raised by the Accused, Crown Counsel determined that there was not a substantial likelihood of conviction, and announced that no charges would be filed.
The charge assessment standard of Crown Counsel takes many factors into consideration when deciding whether or not to lay charges. With respect to sexual assault cases, there are many important elements to acknowledge – failure to do so can result in charges that are ultimately stayed, or receive an acquittal at Trial. The stakes are high both for the Accused and for the complainants.
On the part of the Accused, being formally charged with sexually related offences is much more than simply embarrassing: it can result in the loss of employment, the breakdown of relationships, and can destroy the Accused’s’ reputation in general – even before the case has gone to Court. Once charges have been laid, it seems that notion of “innocent until proven guilty” is thrown out the window. A stay of proceedings, or a trial that results in an acquittal, is met with rage and disgust from the public.
On the part of the complainants, it is well known that going to Trial is a stressful and potentially damaging experience. Testifying and being cross examined can be disturbing – recalling horrific memories is emotionally and mentally harmful. Since there is never a guarantee to the complainant that the Accused will be convicted, it seems logical that a well advised complainant would only want to go through such an ordeal if there was a substantial likelihood that the Accused would be convicted.
In this case, the Crown determined that there were a number of operable defences that could be raised by the Accused, including the honest, but mistaken belief of consent.
The identity of the Accused person will remain uncirculated by the media for privacy reasons.
The number of sexual assaults in Metro Vancouver, and in particular, Surrey, have increased exponentially over the past few months. Many of the attacks have taken place in broad daylight, in high traffic areas such as the Vancouver UBC campus. The brazen nature of the attacks is extremely concerning to authorities.
Individuals charged with these offences are encouraged not to proceed self-represented – this area of law is extremely complex, and the penalties are significant. Being convicted can result in mandatory jail time and requirement to register as a sex offender, and other serious lifelong consequences. If you have been charged with any sexually related offences in British Columbia or the Yukon Territory, don’t hesitate to contact David or Jason Tarnow for your free, confidential consultation. Aside from providing legal advice with respect to your criminal charges, our lawyers will be able to help (if it is your desire) refer you to programs and treatment options to address any underlying issues that may have led you to the situation you have found yourself in.
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 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 | 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 | 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.
