The King v. T.(R.) 2024

Police were conducting a surveillance operation on the client and many other members of a suspected drug trafficking group in Vernon, Armstrong, and Enderby.  The client was well known to police as he had a lengthy criminal record including no less than 7 prior convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking.  Police knew that he was a prohibited driver as well.  During surveillance they observed him get into a small truck and drive.  They followed him and attempted to pull him over.  The client pulled into the parking spot of a residence a family member lived at and tried to run up the stairs to the unit but stopped at the top as police yelled to him that he was under arrest.  Police ended up searching the vehicle and discovered cash, an ounce of crack cocaine, 40 hydromorphone pills, and brass knuckles.  Later, a search of a cell phone seized from the client revealed text message conversations that were indicative of drug trafficking.  The client  was charged with possession of cocaine and hydromporphone for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace for the brass knuckles.  After securing bail for the client on very strict conditions (given his egregious criminal record) Mr. van der Walle went to work on the case.  In the months leading up to the trial Mr. van der Walle filed a Notice of Constitutional Motion alleging that the search of the vehicle was illegal and the search warrant for the cell phone was invalid.  Thankfully, the Crown acknowledged the strength of Mr. van der Walle’s arguments and agreed to drop the trafficking allegations in exchange for the client pleading guilty to simple or personal use possession of the cocaine and possession of the brass knuckles.  The client ended up receiving a time served jail sentence (meaning that the time he spent in custody prior to being granted bail was used to address the short jail sentence) and 12 months of minimal probation.  He walked out of the courtroom the same day he was sentenced.  Given that the Crown was initially suggesting they would ask for 4 years in jail if the client was convicted of the trafficking offences this was a very good result.  Not guilty of trafficking, no additional jail time, no trial necessary.