Top court rules RCMP breached rights of drunk driver

[MarcosSantiago]

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that RCMP breached the rights of an Alberta man who crashed his pickup truck, hurting three passengers.

• Jamie Kenneth Taylor was initially convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm after the April 2008 crash.
• But the Alberta Court of Appeal later ruled he was not guilty.
• That decision was based on the fact that RCMP breached his charter rights by not providing him a phone to contact a lawyer, either at the crash site or at a hospital.
• The Crown appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
• But the country’s highest court has concluded “this is a case not so much about delay in facilitating access, but about its complete denial. This ongoing failure cannot be characterized as reasonable.”

The court ruled while Taylor was informed of his rights to a lawyer, officers forgot to get that to him during his stay in hospital, even though they obtained blood samples in that time.

The five-justice panel said the duty of police is to provide access to counsel at the earliest practical opportunity.

The ruling noted that delaying access to counsel for the entire duration of the accused’s time waiting for and receiving medical treatment in a hospital emergency ward undermines the constitutional requirement of access to counsel ‘without delay.’

“Not everything that happens in an emergency ward is necessarily a medical emergency of such proportions that communication between a lawyer and an accused is not reasonably possible. Constitutional rights cannot be displaced by assumptions of impracticality. Barriers to access must be proven, not assumed, and proactive steps are required to turn the right to counsel into access to counsel,” said the court.

“It is clear that the denial of the requested access (to counsel) had the effect of depriving him of the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to consent to the routine medical treatment that had the potential to create — and in fact ultimately did create — incriminating evidence that would be used against him at trial.”

They said the breach of Taylor’s rights was exacerbated by forcing him to choose between his medical interests and his constitutional ones, without the benefit of the requested advice from counsel.
____________________________________________

The factum of the defendant, outlining his position: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/factums-memoires/35609/FM020_Respondent_Jamie-Kenneth-Taylor.pdf

Any comments?

 

[dasiffy]

seems pretty straight forward. The rcmp didn't allow counsel before the blood test. The blood test is not part of "medical treatment", but even it it were, the rcmp have no right to look at it, or use it.

I don't think a cop needs to hand over his cell phone, but the cops need take you to the police station, and you can use the phone there.
If your hurt and need medical treatment, the police should have to "wait outside" until the doctor says it's ok to come in. At which point the cops should provide access to a telephone.
Then after a conversation with a lawyer, the cops could request a blood test.
If a blood test was needed for medical treatment (eg: diabetes) then that blod test would be inadmissable, and a new one would be required.

 

[johnscruiser]

RCMP breached his charter rights by not providing him a phone to contact a lawyer, either at the crash site or at a hospital.

The RCMP NEVER do this! Three days before I got a phone call, THREE DAYS! And even AFTER I told them I wanted a lawyer they STILL interrogated me! They don't follow the rules, ever.

Oh, and they are supposed to video tape search warrants? Wonder why that requirement came about, and they STILL don't do it properly... start the tape half way through when they've got everything staged just the way they like. Wow.

 

[RockerGuy]

The RCMP NEVER do this! Three days before I got a phone call, THREE DAYS! And even AFTER I told them I wanted a lawyer they STILL interrogated me! They don't follow the rules, ever.

Oh, and they are supposed to video tape search warrants? Wonder why that requirement came about, and they STILL don't do it properly... start the tape half way through when they've got everything staged just the way they like. Wow.

You're no obligated to talk. Just keep quiet unless they're torturing you

 

[johnscruiser]

You're no obligated to talk. Just keep quiet unless they're torturing you

It was pretty much I wouldn't get a phone call until I talked They kept saying "You have one chance, you burn this bridge now and we'll not help you when it comes to court." so I said some stuff and they tacked on a few extra charges. Yeah, thanks for helping

 

[hedo2002]

Typical tactic and it worked for them. You talked as Roomie said, all you need to do is properly identify yourself, then not say another word. Regardless of weather you did anything wrong or not your best approach is say nothing. Not that this is going to help you now.

It was pretty much I wouldn't get a phone call until I talked They kept saying "You have one chance, you burn this bridge now and we'll not help you when it comes to court." so I said some stuff and they tacked on a few extra charges. Yeah, thanks for helping

 

[RockerGuy]

It was pretty much I wouldn't get a phone call until I talked They kept saying "You have one chance, you burn this bridge now and we'll not help you when it comes to court." so I said some stuff and they tacked on a few extra charges. Yeah, thanks for helping

Cna they hold you against your will if you're not charged?
They can possibly hold you for 24hrs but have to let you go.

I'm not sure if this is American.

I'd just keep quiet

 

[johnscruiser]

Cna they hold you against your will if you're not charged?

I already had 70 charges when they grabbed me.

 

[hedo2002]

Being held is really driven by the circumstances, in MOST cases they can't detain you other than summarily for investigation. They can also apply to the courts for a detention order for a longer period of detention, (without charge). But those would be exceptional circumstances.

Best just to ask am I under arrest? Am I being detained? If I am being detained what is the purpose of the detention.

IE an officer arrives on scene of a fight, and he needs top investigate and determine if anyone is to be charged they can detain both or either parties for the purposes of conducting the investigation/identification.

Cna they hold you against your will if you're not charged?
They can possibly hold you for 24hrs but have to let you go.

I'm not sure if this is American.

I'd just keep quiet

 

[dasiffy]

The RCMP NEVER do this! Three days before I got a phone call, THREE DAYS! And even AFTER I told them I wanted a lawyer they STILL interrogated me! They don't follow the rules, ever.

that's a charter violation

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

• (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
• (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

i do believe everything said after your request and before you talked to a lawyer is inadmissible.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I see a problem with this finding as it can create a situation in which an impaired motorist can create a delay between being taken into custody, and actual breath/blood testing. This could result in creating doubt as to the evidence of impairment, as shown in case law where there has been a delay in testing. As you are not permitted to refuse such testing, the presence of a lawyer is meaningless for this purpose. This ruling treads a very fine line.

 

[Bike Cop]

that's a charter violation
i do believe everything said after your request and before you talked to a lawyer is inadmissible.

If you request counsel, the police have to wait until you've spoken with counsel before asking you questions. It's referred to as "hold off duty".

 

[hedo2002]

Not sure how the courts would rule these days, but way back we had to provide the accused with a list of lawyers including legal aid and a telephone book. and land line. They were then given a "reasonable" time to contact legal counsel usually no longer than 30 minutes if they failed to contact a lawyer then we proceeded with the breath test. I had a few cases in which the bench ruled there was no charter violation as it was "unreasonable" to surpass the two hour rule, (normally the first test should be taken within two hours of police contact with the accused). We had to keep "visual" contact with the accused, but were required to not record nor "listen in" on any conversation they had with counsel. You could usually "tell" those that were delaying that they had "5 minutes more to contact counsel" then the test would be done. Many times those who were just delaying then said let's go do the test then.

Police and the courst have been dealing with this scenario since the charter was imposed back in the early 80's. They seem to have for the most part struck a "proper balance" between the protection of an accused rights and the protection of society, without bringing the administration of justice into disrepute...lol

I see a problem with this finding as it can create a situation in which an impaired motorist can create a delay between being taken into custody, and actual breath/blood testing. This could result in creating doubt as to the evidence of impairment, as shown in case law where there has been a delay in testing. As you are not permitted to refuse such testing, the presence of a lawyer is meaningless for this purpose. This ruling treads a very fine line.

 

[hedo2002]

If you request counsel, the police have to wait until you've spoken with counsel before asking you questions. It's referred to as "hold off duty".

As with any profession you are going to find the odd case where an officer oversteps the boundaries, but in Canada these cases are the exception and not the rule. 99.9% of all officers follow the rules and do their best given the job to be done. Unfortunately, the public and the media focus all their attention on the .1% that don't. Just like the story a few weeks ago about the 18,000 accidents by TTC drivers in the last 5 years THAT is what sells papers, reporting that 95% of operators never have an accident doesn't....lol

 

[nobbie48]

As with any profession you are going to find the odd case where an officer oversteps the boundaries, but in Canada these cases are the exception and not the rule. 99.9% of all officers follow the rules and do their best given the job to be done. Unfortunately, the public and the media focus all their attention on the .1% that don't. Just like the story a few weeks ago about the 18,000 accidents by TTC drivers in the last 5 years THAT is what sells papers, reporting that 95% of operators never have an accident doesn't....lol

If the good guys dropped to 94% the bad drivers go up to 6% from 5%. That's a 20% increase in bad drivers. Similarly when crime goes up or down 1%. The effect on the system is far greater than 1%.

 

[raginduck]

I see a problem with this finding as it can create a situation in which an impaired motorist can create a delay between being taken into custody, and actual breath/blood testing. This could result in creating doubt as to the evidence of impairment, as shown in case law where there has been a delay in testing. As you are not permitted to refuse such testing, the presence of a lawyer is meaningless for this purpose. This ruling treads a very fine line.

I would think that cellphones make this almost impossble...
In this case... they had ample opportunity to provide the accused access to a phone... and didn't.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I would think that cellphones make this almost impossble...
In this case... they had ample opportunity to provide the accused access to a phone... and didn't.

Yes, that's the case here, but the judgment seems a tad wide ranging. That's my concern.

There's also the fact that with or without this treatment the blood sample or a breath sample could be required, so he couldn't refuse to provide same without legal consequences.

 

[FemmeFatale]

Anyone here think of the rights of the victims here who were injured by a drunk driver?

Ya, I didn't think so.

Everyone's so concerned about the rights of the accused . Who cares about the victims rights.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Anyone here think of the rights of the victims here who were injured by a drunk driver?

Ya, I didn't think so.

Everyone's so concerned about the rights of the accused . Who cares about the victims rights.

This is how the system is tested and improved, so that the innocent don't suffer. Our legal system is predicated on the premise "innocent, until proved guilty." It also doesn't preclude a civil case, in which the accused is sued into the poor house.

 

[FemmeFatale]

This is how the system is tested and improved, so that the innocent don't suffer. Our legal system is predicated on the premise "innocent, until proved guilty." It also doesn't preclude a civil case, in which the accused is sued into the poor house.

I realize that our system is based on in coconut until proven guilty. And a verdict of guilty is based on "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" . I get it I a do.

But I haven't seen much improvement. As a matter of fact, I see it getting worse for victims of crime.