Our client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of explosives and a restricted firearm with ammunition.
Police received a complaint from a man who alleged that he had just been in a fight with our client in front of our client’s house and that our client said he was going inside to get a gun. Because the complaint involved a firearm, more than a dozen police officers immediately attended at our client’s house. The police claimed that when they arrived, they saw the lights of a vehicle in the driveway flash on and off and saw a man run into a wooded area. A short time later, officers found our client in the wooded area and arrested him. They then immediately searched our client’s home and the car in the driveway. In the house, they found a large quantity of cocaine and other items consistent with drug trafficking. In the car, they found a firearm that was stored with ammunition and other explosives.
Upon a review of the disclosure, we discovered that several of the police officers noted inconsistent explanations for why they decided to search the house and the car immediately rather than applying for a search warrant. Furthermore, we could prove that the explanations given by several of the officers were untrue. We believed that the police knew they did not have a lawful justification for searching the home and that a search warrant would not have been granted had they applied for one.
After a number of pretrials with the Crown and a judge, the Crown agreed to withdraw these charges.
Note: This is a case where the police did not obtain a search warrant