|
|
ARTICLE SEARCHES |
| March 2nd. 1999 |
“SHAWN HEWLIN v. THE QUEEN” N.S. Crt. Of Appeal
Case summary: ( Fresh human scent )
In this case the accused Raymond was seen throwing an object over a guard rail. The area was protected from contamination and a Police dog was brought in to search the area. The police dog indicated on a small oblong container containing 16 hits of LSD. The area was completely searched without the dog indicating on any other freshly thrown items. The accused was initially acquitted, the crown appealed the conviction and ordered a new trial. In this case the defendant appealed that ruling and Nova Scotia Court of appeal agreed with the appeals court and dismissed the defendents appeal of that ruling. |
| |
|
|
BARK & HOLD vs. FIND AND BITE |
| April 18th. 2001 |
“ASAD MOHAMAD v. VANCOUVER”
Case summary: ( Running apprehension – Off line search, No evidence – alternate method better)
Three males stopped as a result of an armed robbery. Two of the suspects stopped and the 3rd suspect fled. Police Service dog sent to apprehend the 3rd. The accused Mohammad attempted to seek damages for his personal injuries while being apprehended. The accused had appealed the dismissal of his action. The appeals crt. agreed with the initial judge and found the Vancouver police Department did not use excessive force and was not negligent for not training in other methods, such as the bark & hold or detain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED |
| Apr. 14th. 1989 |
“REGINA v. HART” Alberta Crt. Of Appeal
Case summary: ( Statements made in dogs prescence inadmissible. )
Original case saw the accused convicted for inculpatory statements made immediately following being bitten by a police dog. Trial judge found the statements to be spontaneous and voluntary. Appeal court judge found the statements to be inadmissible. – Statement deriving from violence of arrest inadmissible. |
| 1995 |
“Regina v. Fitzpatrick” (Nfld. S.C.)
Case summary: ( Statement made in tracking dogs prescence admissible.)
Accused was tracked by a police dog on a lead and was eventually found, whereupon he stated: “Okay, you got me, damn, if it wasn’t for the dog you never would have found me,” The Newfoundland Supreme Court found this apparently spontaneous utterance to be voluntary. There was no evidence that the dog was acting in a violent manner.
|
| |
|
|
USE of FORCE and CONTROL |
| Aug. 7 1980 |
“CARR v. FORBES ET AL”
Case summary: ( Running apprehension – wrong suspect )
Police dog sent to apprehend car theft suspect. Suspect suffered some minor abrasions and was detained by police for approx. 1 hr. before they determined he had nothing to do with the crime. The court stated that although the judgement of the constable in sending the police dog to apprehend the plaintiff may be questioned, nothing indicated bad faith on his part or on the part of the officers who detained the plaintiff. |
| Jan. 4th. 1982 |
“REGINA v. BARR” Prov.Crt
Case summary: ( Cruelty to animals charge – defence / use of K9 excessive force.)
Case involves a suspect charged with cruelty to animals for hitting a police dog with a pry bar. The Police Service dog had been sent on the accused who fled from a break & Enter, refusing to stop. “My decision in this case is based solely on its facts. It must not be considered as sanctioning the indiscriminate use of a police service dog to attack. I can think of many situations where an accused could have legal justification or excuse and colour of right. It is obvious that great care must be exercised by police in the use of police service dogs. In all the circumstances, I find that the crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and I find the accused guilty as charged.” Accused found guilty. |
| Jul. 22nd. 1983 |
“WASACASE v. REGINA”
Case summary: ( Class action lawsuit against the Regina City Police K9 unit. )
The accused Wasacase was located by a police dog hiding under a deck following a break in. This case as well as several other incidents created an enquiry by the Regina Police commission. This enquiry was supported by the Saskatchewan Human rights commission who took a stand that dogs should not be used as a means of force for regular and ordinary law enforcement. In the end the Police commission found in favour of the use of police dogs, however not after first creating a considerable amount of bad publicity for the Regina Police. |
Jul. 28th. 1988 |
“POMMAINVILLE v. LONDON”
Case summary: ( Homeowner bitten by dog – off line )
Following a traffic stop in which the driver fled from police on foot, a canine team began an off line yard to yard search. During the search a male homeowner was bitten. As a result of the civil suit for $60,000.00, the case was settled for $5,000.00. London received very negative coverage over this incident which also saw an expert from another agency criticizing their deployment methods. |
| Jul. 27th. 1990 |
“JASON DANIELS v. BRANDON”
Case summary: ( *LERA Hearing – K9 handler shooting ) * Law enforcement review agency Manitoba.
A K9 officer attended a stand off between police and Daniels who armed himself with a knife. While attempting to negotiate with Daniels he made some movement towards police and was shot by the K9 handler. The handler was taken before the Law enforcement review agency charged with excessive force. Evidence was presented by a retired k9 handler criticizing the handler for shooting Daniels instead of using his dog. This testimony was ridiculous because the conditions surrounding the incident did not allow for a deployment with a police dog. The judge however found the handler had used excessive force although blamed Daniels mostly for the incident. Daniels awarded $25,000.00. Brandon failed to appeal this however as it had already cost them $250,000. to defend the initial hearing. The handler received a letter of reprimand that was to stay on his file for two years. |
Sept. 25th. 1995 |
“ARNAULT v. PRINCE ALBERT”
Case summary: ( Running apprehension – civil case dismissed )
Dog sent on suspect on three occasions, the dog was released and the suspect was warned each time to stop. The accused sued for damages caused by the dog bites. The action was dismissed. “ The dog handler had to take precautions after learning that a firearm had been stolen in the break in, and commited no wrong amounting to negligence.” “The police dog was doing the job for which it had been trained, and had to continue until it restrained the suspect. Section 10 of the police Act, 1990 (Sask.) would also have denied the suspects claim, as the two officers were acting in good faith and in the course of their duties as police officers. |
| Nov. 7th. 1995 |
“C.(T.L.) v. VANCOUVER”
Case summary: ( Apprehension on top of parked car – civil suit )
Plaintiff found 50 % at fault for his injuries. Injuries resulted from being bitten by Police dog as well as being kicked. Accused had climbed on top of a vehicle at which time a police dog was sent on him and brought him down. Police said that the accused was using the vehicle to get over a fence to make good his escape. The accused who stated he climbed on the vehicle for the sole purpose of escaping from the dog was believed by the judge because of contradicting testimony between several officers. |
|
May 07th. 1996 |
"FENNELL v. VICTORIA"
Case summary: (Accused sued for damages caused by police dog when he was arrested.)
Accused was bitten in the foot when he was located hiding in a storage closet. Charged with Break & Enter.
Judge ruled the police officers were justified and did not use excessive force. The plaintiff's claims were dismissed. |
| Nov. 16th. 1999 |
“CECIL ROSARIO v. RCMP”
Case summary: ( Apprehension of 2nd suspect – not charged )
Rosario had fled the scene of an accident along with another male. Both males were tracked down by a police dog. When the 1st suspect was located by the K9 team Rosario jumped up from hiding and was bitten by the police dog. Because Rosario was not charged by the police with any crimes, he was only found 25% at fault for his injuries. The RCMP were found at fault. Rosario received $35,000.00 for his injuries. ( An analysis of the case would show that Rosario could/should have been charged in this incident. Failure to charge him as a party to this crime resulted in this judgement. ) |
Apr. 12th. 1999
Jan. 14th. 2000 |
"EARL FRANCIS PENFOLD v. THE QUEEN”
Case summary: ( Search Warrant invalid because of dog bite – appealed/ overturned )
K9 handler attended on a Narcotic search warrant with members of the RCMP’s ERT. During the entry the accused Penhold was bitten by a police dog that was sent on him when he refused orders to get down etc. As a result of the accused’s dog bite the original judge through out all evidence obtained following the dog bite. The crown appealed this decision and a new trial was ordered. “ The use of the dog was for the legitimate purpose of protecting the police officers present. The evidence in question was real evidence, namely the plants, and there is no casual linkage between Toro’s biting of Penhold and the existence of the evidence.” |
Jul. 27th. 2000 |
“DENNIS v. CITY OF VANCOUVER”
Case summary: ( Police entered accuseds apt. used PSD to apprehend him – Excessive.)
The accused had been wanted for domestic related offences including stalking. Police attended his residence and used a Police Service Dog to apprehend him. On two previous occasions he had hidden from police in his bathroom. ( Although this case occurred prior to R.v.Feeney it was taken into consideration.) Police gave no evidence that the accused had previous history of violence or weapons, only that he had hidden. “In deciding on the quantum of damages I refer to the case of Rosario v. RCMP. January 19, 2000. – Mr. Dennis’ injuries are not anywhere near as serious or as long lasting as those of Mr. Rosario and accordingly the award to Mr. Dennis will be $5,000.00. |
| Dec. 01 2000 |
"Regina v. B.C.M and S.C.M. (B.C. prov. court)"
Case summary: (accused sought a stay of proceedings because getting bitten violated his Charter s. 7 “right to security of person”.)
The accused was seen in the area of a break in acting suspiciously. The dog handler called out to him “Vancouver Police, stop or I will send the dog, don’t move.” The accused was pulled to the ground and bitten. The accused suffered 24 stitches, teeth marks and bruising. Defence argued that there were many other officers in the vicinity that could have made the arrest without the dog. However the handler stated that he was unaware of the position of the other officers. The court adopted the police version of events and found the force used was not excessive under s. 25 of the Criminal Code and accordingly there was no Charter violation. |
April 18th. 2001 |
“ASAD MOHAMAD v. VANCOUVER”
Case summary: ( Running apprehension – off line search / identification )
Three males stopped as a result of an armed robbery. Two of the suspects stopped and the 3rd suspect fled. Police Service dog sent to apprehend the 3rd. The accused Mohammad attempted to seek damages for his personal injuries while being apprehended. The accused had appealed the dismissal of his action. The appeals crt. agreed with the initial judge and found the Vancouver police Department did not use excessive force and was not negligent for not training in other methods. |
| Mar. 15th. 2002 |
“REGINA v. JODY CLARENCE WHITE”
Case summary: ( Defence argued accused should receive lighter sentence because he was bitten by police dog during apprehension - unsuccessful.)
“The evidence here fails to establish that the arresting officers mistreated White and that the dog bites were not justified consequences of White’s actions. As a result, the dog bites do not have a mitigating effect on sentence.” |
Mar. 8th. 2003 |
“Richard Robinow v. Vancouver City and Cst. Starr"
Case summary: (Civil case in which police were accused of excessive use of Force.)
The accused was a passenger in a stolen vehicle and fled on foot when police arrived. A Police tracking dog located the accused Robinow under a vehicle. The accused who fought with the dog was bitten in the arm and dragged from underneath. The civil case was dismissed. The judge failed to believe the accused when he said he didn’t know the vehicle was stolen. Accused admitted to smoking marihuana and heroin prior to the incident. |
|
Jan 05, 2005 |
"MYERS v. GRAHAM and HER MAGESTY THE QUEEN"
Case summary: (Accused sues for allegations that he was attacked by Corporal Grahams dog deliberately causing serious bodily harm.)
Accused was initially charged with assaulting a police officer but later plead guilty to obstruction of justice. The action was dismissed as the judge ruled that only enough force was used to affect the arrest. |
Feb. 27th. 2008 |
Her Majesty the Queen v. Edward Wayne Belter
Case summary: (Accused appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, Sexual Assault etc. saying his charter had been violated and he was a subject of excessive force Regarding the dog bite.)
Alberta Court of Queens bench Judge ruled ruled that there was no evidence of excessive force and that Mr Belters rights under s. 7 of the Charter were not violated. |
Apr. 30th. 2008 |
“Mark McQuillan v. Constable Ray Wong and the City of Vancouver
Case summary: (Civil case in which civilian seeks damages for bite injury to his left knee.)
The plaintiff had ran up behind Cst. Wong and his police Service Dog while they were tracking suspects from a stolen vehicle.
plaintiff conceded that sec. 21(2) of the police act, precludes Cst. Wong being personally liable and the action against him dismissed.
The defendant argued that the standard of care is set out in Doern v. Phillips Estate (1994), 2 B.C.L.R. (3d) 349 (S.C.), aff’d (1997), 43 B.C.L.R. (3d) 53 (C.A.) and Fortey (Guardian ad litem of) v. Canada (Attorney General), 1999 BCCA 314, 63 B.C.L.R. (3d) 185, and the standard to which Constable Wong should be held is that of “a reasonable police officer, acting reasonably and within the statutory powers imposed upon him or her, according to the circumstances of the case” (Doern (S.C.) at para. 68). It is argued that because of the way the plaintiff approached Constable Wong from behind, combined with his arm movements and his loud voice, Bear reacted without command to protect his master as he is trained to do and Constable Wong did not act negligently.
In my view, Constable Wong did not fail to act reasonably in the circumstances. He had no time to prevent Bear from contacting the plaintiff. He acted appropriately to remove Bear and did so as quickly as possible. Although the result is unfortunate given that the plaintiff was attempting to assist, the action must be dismissed.
|
|
|
|
DRUG DETECTION |
| Jul. 3rd. 2001 |
“REGINA v. FERRARI”
Case summary: ( Full disclosure of all pipeline material – not relevant. )
After a request from defence, the judge ruled that it does not matter what training the members received but rather what they did, not what they were trained to do. In other words, the materials sought by the defence are not relevant to an issue in these proceedings. |
| Oct. 2001 |
“QUEEN v. DAVID WILSON/SANDY CHARLES”
Case summary: ( Detained motorist – Investigative detention – articulate clearly what indicators observed. )
Accused convicted for transporting 48 lbs. of marihuana in his vehicle. In this case the judge congratulated the officer for his clear and concise articulation in giving his testimony. |
| May 17th. 2002 |
“REGINA v. SON HOANG TRUONG”
Case summary: ( Appeal of conviction – 52 pounds of Marihuana. Police removed bag from conveyor belt for dog to sniff. Appeal dismissed.)
Appeals court judge stated, “while I would disagree with the trial judge’s ruling that there was no breach of s.8, I think that the breach is so minor that the evidence was properly admitted. I would dismiss the appeal”. |
| Jun. 4th. 2002 |
“REGINA v. NICK DENIS / ROBERT DUBOIS”
Case summary: ( Sniff of vehicle with PSD. Justified w/o warrant with other evidence.)
Police dog was used to sniff the accuseds vehicle after officers detected the fresh smell of Marihuana coming from the vehicle. “ The police acted in good faith and did not cause the search to be conducted on a whim or a hunch.” |
| Jun. 24th. 2003 |
Her Majesty the Queen v Lam / Dinh
Case summary ( Sniff of lockers with PSD. Not allowed without warrant.)
Alberta court of appeal advised that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when utilizing public lockers in a bus station. Not the same expecation can be made in an airport where security is a concern and the same privacy cannot be expected. |
| Oct. 29th. 2004 |
Her Majesty the Queen v Tessling
Case summary ( Use of FLIR )
A unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled Police
can use FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) devices which give a clear image of thermal energy or heat radiation without obtaining a warrant.
The court ruled that the device can be used because it doesn't reveal any
intimate details of a person's lifestyle or part of a person’s core biographical data.
The heat distribution information offers no insight into private
life and its disclosure scarcely affects a person’s dignity, integrity and
autonomy.
This has already had positive results for Detector Dog deployment. |
| Nov. 12th. 2004 |
Regina v. Dubois BC Prov. Court
Case summary ( Sniff with dog allowed after arrest.)
The Crown accepts the dog search was lawful only if the
police officers had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the
appellant.
The drug detection dog attended & located a small amount of marihuana, some roaches & some money inside the vehicle after being requested by the investigating officers who had detained the vehicle occupants. The detention was based upon the strong odor of fresh burnt marihuana emanating from the vehicle & a green leafy substance seen on the white pants of the passenger. |
| Jan. 18th. 2005 |
Regina v. Davis BC Prov. Court
Case summary ( Sniff outside of vehicle - not a search)
Vancouver PS stated they were carryon an operation to interdict drugs being transported by ferry from VCRIsland. They deployed a drug detector dog into the parking area on the ferry & it worked a scent cone to the open rear windows of Mr. DAVIS’S vehicle & indicated. VCR officers noted the strong odor of raw marihuana emanating from the vehicle & apprehended DAVIS who was sleeping in the driver’s seat. They secured a warrant based on the totality of the circumstance & seized about 9 lbs of raw marihuana.
Alberta court of appeal advised that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when utilizing public lockers in a bus station. Not the same expecation can be made in an airport where security is a concern and the same privacy cannot be expected.
|
|
Aug. 22nd 2005 |
Regina v. Gosse New Brunswick QB
Case Summary ( Dog sniff of the air surrounding a passengers suitcase at the bus depot terminal in Moncton.)
As a result of a positive indication by a Police Service Dog. The accused was arrested and a quantity of meth, cocaine and marijuanna was located in his suitcase.
The accused attempted to have the evidence excluded on the grounds that his rights had been breached.
In his decision the judge stated " The use of the police dog as an investigative tool provides the police or the state with no further insight into Mr Gosse's private life. The dog sniff does not constitute a search within the purview of sec. 8 of the charter. As there was no search there could be no breach of Mr Gosse's rights. |
|
Apr. 26th 2007 |
Regina v. Schrenk Manitoba QB
Case Summary ( Dog sniff outside of the vehicle after accused stopped during random traffic stop. Information and observations made police suspect he was transporting Illegal drugs)
As a result of the dogs indication the accused was arrested and subsequent search revealed 81.5 lbs of Marihuanna.
Accused argued his rights were violated under sections 7,8,9, and 10(b). The judge ruled that the subject of the police examination was the air space adjacent to the accuseds car, which was on a public highway. The use of the passive drug dog was not random, nor was it either intrusive or evasive.
In conclusion, the accused did not demonstrate that his rights were violated under the charter. |
| Apr. 25th 2008 |
Her Majesty the Queen v. Kang-Brown
Case summary ( Sniff of a travellers backpack at the Calgary bus depot.)
Supreme Court of Canada accepted an appeal and acquited the accused.
see Her Magesty the Queen v. A.M. below.... |
| Apr. 25th 2008 |
Her Majesty the Queen v. A.M.
Case summary ( Sniff of a student's backpack in a school gymnasium.)
Supreme court of Canada rejected an appeal by the crown and allowed the accuseds acquittal to stand.
In both of these cases the courts did not feel the police had reasonable suspicion before the dog sniff.
Queen v. Kang - Brown, traveller was stopped and his bag sniffed only because of his nervousness. No other articulation given.
Queen v. A.M., students backpack searched during a routine/random dog sniff.
"Reasonable suspicion" is a sufficient section 8 standard for a drug search because of its minimal intrusiveness, narrowly targeted objective, and high rate of accuracy. It requires an expectation that the targeted individual is possibly engaged in some criminal activity. an expectation that is more than mere suspicion. ( A hunch based on intuition gained by experience.) and which is based on factual elements which permit independent judicial assessment.
If there are grounds for a sniff (reasonable suspicion)....
then an alert by an accurate dog would give grounds to search the bag but not arrest the individual. There are a number of variables in canine accuracy, and evidence of the particular dog's tests and records (particular false positives) is essential to the grounds for a hand search of the bag. |
|
Oct 22nd 2008 |
R v Payette BC Prov. Court
Case summary ( vehicle stop which lead to accuseds arrest and seizure of marihuanna in a suitcase.)
The markers found by the officer constituted the requisite for further investigation with the use of the sniffer dog. The positive detection by the dog of drugs gave the officer reasonable grounds to believe he was committing an offense related to drugs and he was arrested and a search of the vehicle ccurred incidental to the arrest. The search was reasonable and lawful in the circumstances. The accused has not established a breach of his section 8 Charter right. The search is valid and authorized on the findings I have made herein and the application to exclude evidence is denied. |
|
Apr 23rd 2009 |
R v Bramley and Schiller Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
Case summary ( traffic stop for speeding, lead officer to be suspicious of the two occupants. Occupants detained and a Canine unit was requested to assist. Canine sniff gave a positive alert on the trunk. The occupants were arrested and the drugs were located during a search of the trunk.)
Court of appeal ordered a new trial; Dog sniff was justified, evidence should have been admissable.
The only issue was with regards to detaining the occupants on the basis of a suspected offence ( however adequate basis for suspecting transport of illegal drugs), therefore the breach was justified. There were no issues with the dog sniff, as it was minimally intrusive to the occupants privacy. |
|
|
|
|
|
SCENT |
Nov.2nd. 2000 |
“REGINA v. KLYMCHUK”
Case summary: ( Evidence of no track present – admissible )
Police tracking dog brought to the scene of crime. Police dog failed to locate a track. The crown argued successfully that the jury could properly draw a conclusion that there was no fresh scent in the area. |
| Mar. 2nd. 1999 |
“SHAWN HEWLIN v. THE QUEEN”
Case summary: ( Fresh human scent )
In this case the accused Raymond was seen throwing an object over a guard rail. The area was protected from contamination and a Police dog was brought in to search the area. The police dog indicated on a small oblong container containing 16 hits of LSD. The area was completely searched without the dog indicating on any other freshly thrown items. The accused was initially acquitted, the crown appealed the conviction and ordered a new trial. In this case the defendant appealed that ruling and Nova Scotia Court of appeal agreed with the appeals court and dismissed the defendents appeal of that ruling. |
|
|
|
|
TRACKING CASES |
January 8th. 1926 |
“REX vs. WHITE” British Columbia court of Appeal
Case summary: ( Bloodhound evidence not admissible )
Appeal by the accused from a jury conviction for murder set aside. Appeal court judges at the time looked at many cases that occurred prior. Because this tracking evidence was new at the time, judge MACDONALD, J.A. states, “ The point has apparently not been considered by our own or the English Courts, and in view of the lack of authority and the need of caution in making innovations, and because I do not think sound principles support it, I would reject this evidence as inadmissible. |
1945 |
R v. Hawley County Court Case
Case summary ( Tracking evidence admitted)
Tracking evidence admitted without any reference to White. |
May 14th. 1962 |
“REGINA vs. HAAS” British Columbia court of Appeal
Case summary: ( 1st. case Tracking evidence found admissible )
Once the qualifications of a tracking dog to follow a scent and that of his trainer to handle the dog have been established ( in the instant case it was admitted at trial that both the dog and its handler were as good as they could be ) evidence of tracking the accused by scent from the scene of a crime by such a dog is admissible on the trial of the accused and the only question concerns the weight to be given such evidence. In referring to the earlier case of “REX V.WHITE” the judge states, In view of what has been argued by counsel following the reasoning of the majority in Rex v. White, supra, that it is dangerous to admit testimony of this nature as evidence in a criminal case, it is clear from the record that every precaution was taken for the protection of the accused respondent here. ( Majority holding in White formally overturned.) |
| 1979 |
R. v. Dillman British Columbia court of Appeal
Case summary: ( Evidence that a dog may switch to a fresher scent during a track)
The Court of appeal found a conviction in this case was sustainable even though the handler testified that the dog could become confused by a fresher scent. Evidence provided was that the track was in fresh snow with the nearest tracks being a meter away. |
| Apr. 27th. 1994 |
“REGINA v. BRENT WILLIAM BLAKE”
Case summary: ( Accused conviction for break & enter appealed / tracking evidence – dismissed)
The accused was tracked from the scene of a break in by a police dog. Although there was very little other evidence, the judge took into consideration that the accused had no other explanation for where he was found, he was wearing gloves and also attempted to flee when located by the dog. |
Jan 30th. 1995 |
“REGINA v. FITZPATRICK”
Case summary: ( Tracking evidence admissible )
Accused charged with Possession of unlawfully imported goods. Track lead to the accused, as well as to a garbage bag of contraband tobacco. |
May 8th. 1996 |
“ROBERT RACKLEY v. ONTARIO CRT/JUSTICE”
Case summary: ( Tracking more than one suspect )
“Police officer permitted to testify as to his observations about what his dog did on evening in question and as to his dog’s ability to track human scent as distinguished from other scents – Police officer not to venture opinions as to which particular scent dog was tracking.” Handler had established his dogs ability to track a particular human scent to the exclusion of other scents. However, this conclusion breaks down when the dog is tracking more than one human scent. Judge agreed to expert evidence referring to the cases of R v. Mohan and R. v. Beland. |
| Oct. 2nd. 1997 |
“REGINA v. ROBERT STANLEY MACKENZIE”
Case summary: (appeal of conviction for Robbery, PGOBC Over $5000.00)
The accused was tracked from a S/V that had also been involved in a Robbery. A combination of circumstantial evidence was used to convict the accused as no positive identification could be made in regards to him having done the robbery. Appeal court judge stated, “ I am satisfied that there are certain items, certain parts of evidence when considered in totality, can only lead me to the conclusion that Mr Mackenzie was the person driving the vehicle on the date in question and the person that was driving it dangerously and was involved in the robbery.” |
| Nov. 4th. 1997 |
“QUEEN v. SHERMAN”
Case summary: ( Establishing foundation of handler & dog )
A dog handler should be called as an expert witness and both he and the dog must be qualified. “ Dog track evidence is circumstantial evidence which is admissible if the foundation for the evidence is properly made out; thereafter the only question is the weight to be afforded it. |
Aug.17th. 1998 |
“DAO HUU PHAM v. THE QUEEN”
Case summary: ( Tracking evidence – handler & trainer )
The judge accepted cumulative evidence from both the handler and the Sergeant i/c that their unit had a standard in which the dogs were trained too and that the team in question met that standard. |
Nov. 25th. 1999 |
“DAO HUU PHAM v. REGINA” BC. Crt of appeal
Case summary: ( Same as above)
“ In all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence. Accordingly, this appeal must fail." |
|
|
|
Feb. 17th. 1999 |
“REGINA v. MINH KHOI KEVIN NGUYEN”
Case summary: ( Appeal of tracking evidence – when learned PSD had since been put down.)
Defence council had not raised any concerns at the trial about officer’s qualifications. It was also learned by the court that the dog had been put down because of his tendency to bite the hand of his handler, not because of any problems in tracking. |
|
Mar.12 2001 |
" REGINA v. FREDERICK BARNHARDT" BC court of appeal
Case summary ( Appeal of conviction for PGOBC after the accused was arrested following a track from a S/V.)
Conviction upheld after considering the tracking evidence stated Having considered these facts, I find the combination of these circumstances to be consistent with Barnhardt having been one of two people in possession of the stolen jeep. |
|
Aug. 17 2005 |
"REGINA v. KELLY EDITH OLSEN"
Case summary (Appeal of tracking evidence - because there was a gap in the track where the dog lost the scent.)
Conviction upheld, He found that when all evidence pertaining to this issue is considered, he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a pure question of fact with which this Court is unlikely to disagree. |
|
|
