3 total
A police officer was convicted of forgery and trafficking but acquitted of obstruction of justice.
This criminal trial involved two Ontario Provincial Police officers, Jason Redmond and David Vogelzang, facing charges related to obstruction of justice, breach of trust, and trafficking cannabis, stemming from an undercover operation.
The court acquitted both officers on charges of attempted obstruction of justice and breach of trust concerning a meeting where they discussed a rumour about the undercover officer's identity, finding reasonable doubt regarding their intent to obstruct.
Redmond was found guilty of trafficking cannabis (Count 4, admitted) and knowingly dealing with a forged document (Count 5).
He was acquitted of a second trafficking charge (Count 3, withdrawn) and a breach of trust charge related to the forged document (Count 6), as his actions in creating the document were not connected to his official duties.
Directed verdict of acquittal granted for proceeds of crime charge but denied for drug possession charges.
The co-accused brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on charges of possession of marijuana and heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.
The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to establish constructive or joint possession, as the co-accused was not present during the search of the residence where the drugs and currency were found.
The court dismissed the motion regarding the drug charges, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of knowledge and control based on the open visibility of the drugs and the presence of her personal belongings.
However, the court granted the motion regarding the proceeds of crime charge, as the currency was hidden and there was insufficient evidence to infer her knowledge and control.
Charter application to exclude evidence dismissed; search warrant ITO contained sufficient reliable evidence establishing reasonable grounds.
The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and related offences, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a search of his residence.
He argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant contained inaccurate information, material omissions, and relied on an untested confidential informant, thereby violating his rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.
The court reviewed the ITO, including amplification evidence from cross-examinations, and concluded there were no intentional misstatements meant to mislead the authorizing Justice.
The court found that the cumulative evidence, including police surveillance and informant tips, provided reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.
The application was dismissed.
