The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime following a high-risk takedown arrest and the execution of a search warrant at his home.
On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred by finding the police used reasonable force during his arrest, by engaging in impermissible after-the-fact reasoning regarding a delay in his right to counsel, and by refusing to exclude evidence seized from his home under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the police use of force was justified given the appellant's history, the trial judge's reasons were not improper after-the-fact justifications, and the evidence seized from the home was not obtained in a manner that infringed the Charter because the search was temporally and causally disconnected from the unlawful police interview.
