Erec Rolfe, Defence Lawyer
Erec Rolfe, Defence Lawyer

R v. V.B.  Client acquitted after crack cocaine found in client's vehicle.

Charges: Possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking

Result: Client acquitted after Superior Court trial

 

When the police pulled over the car that V.B. was driving, they discovered the car was uninsured.  The car was impounded and, in an inventory search, the police located nine grams of crack cocaine tucked between the passenger seat and centre-console.  Mr Rolfe argued that the location of the drugs was not visible to V.B.  Further, V.B.'s conduct during the course of the roadside stop was inconsistent with someone who was aware of the drugs.  The trial judge agreed, and aquitted V.B. and his co-accused, who was his passenger.

You can read the judgment here: R. v. Bailey-Ricketts, 2014 ONSC 569

 

R v. L.S.  Client acquitted after police find crack cocaine during strip search of client.

Charges: Posession of crack-cocaine for the purpose of trafficking

Result: client acquitted following trial

 

L.S. was arrested by police for breaching his bail conditions.  The police testified that they observed him walking in an area that he was not allowed to be in and recognized him from the picture on a bulletin board at the police station.  Following his arrest, police strip searched L.S. and allegedly found six grams of crack-cocaine during the strip search.  

 

Through careful cross-examination of the officers, Mr. Rolfe demonstrated that their stories did not make sense and could not be true.  In fact, the arrest was unlawful.  Mr. Rolfe argued that L.S.'s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The trial judge agreed and the narcotics were excluded from evidence.  Accordingly, the case was dismissed.

 

 

R v. B.D.  Withdrawal of Charges after Drugs Found in Client's Pocket

Charges: Posession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking

Result: charges withdrawn following Charter challenge

 

The police located B.D. in a stairwell of an apartment buiding, where they believed he was trespassing.  The police smelled burned marijuana, and then detained B.D. and searched him, locating marjuana, a scale and currency.

 

Mr. Rolfe brought a consitutional challenge to the search, arguing that the police had no grounds to search B.D.  In particular, he argued that the search was unrelated to any suspicion of trespassing and that the smell of burned marijuana was insufficient to ground a suspicion that he possessed marijuana.  On the day of trial, the Crown withdrew the charges on the strength of the Charter challenge.

 

 

R v. C.W.  Prosecution drops trafficking charges, client pleads down to simple possession

Charges: Trafficking in a Schedule I Substance

Result: Crown withdraws trafficking charge, client pleads guilty to simple possession

 

The police received a tip that C.W. and a colleague were selling pills.  They set up surveilance and observed C.W. engage in several hand to hand transactions with known drug users.  The police arrested C.W. and found narcotics on him.  

 

Mr. Rolfe successfully neogiated with the prosecution, arguing that it could not prove that C.W. was selling drugs, as opposed to buying them.  He pleaded guilty to simple possession for the drugs found on him during the search.

 

 

R. v. C.L.  Marijuana possession charges dropped after Charter challenge

Charges: Posession of marijuana

Result: charges withdrawn following Charter challenge

 

C.L. was minding his own business in a park when the police approached him and began to question him.  WIth no basis for suspicion, they asked whether he had "anything on him".  C.L. advised the police he had marijuana and handed it over.  He was immediately arrrested.  

 

Mr. Rolfe brought a consitutional challenge, arguing that the police had unlawfully detained C.L. and questioned him without providing his rights to counsel.  His verbal response was unconstitutionally obtained, and the resulting seizure of the marijuana resulted from the unlawful questioning.  As a result, the charges were dropped on the day of trial.

 

 

Print Print | Sitemap
© Erec Rolfe Defence Law