The Queen v. B.(D.) 2020 #2

 While on bail for allegedly possessing fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking, the client was again arrested for the same offence after the police followed him around town and observed him to make a number of short duration meets with known drug addicts.  The client was again strip searched at the police detachment.  As a result the police discovered dozens of individually wrapped packages of cocaine and heroin/fentanyl.   Predictably the client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking x2 on a second indictment.  Things looked grim because if the client was convicted of both sets of charges he likely would have faced a global sentence of 4-5 years in prison .  Luckily he hired Mr. van der Walle who immediately went to work defending him on both indictments.  On the opening day of the first trial the Crown entered a stay of proceedings as a  result of Mr. van der Walle’s Notice of Constitutional Argument: see prior post “The Queen v. B.(D.)2019.”  On the second indictment, the client’s trial was adjourned because of Covid 19.  During the intervening period, Mr. van der Walle again file a Notice of Constitutional Argument alleging that the police violated the client’s rights with an illegal strip search.  The Crown carefully considered the matter and again decided that the defence’s argument was strong and that the proper course was to terminate the case with a stay of proceedings.  Not guilty on all charges AGAIN.  No trial necessary for either indictment.