Capstone: a powers review of the Lakeshore Hardware case

For the capstone, Desjardins gives each student the complete Lakeshore Hardware file: the call log, the broadcast, body-worn camera summaries, the notes of every officer, the arrest report, the property reports, the phone seizure record, the information to obtain and warrant for the Birch Lane garage, the warrant report, the release record and the Crown brief. Their task is to write a powers review: for every use of a police power in the file, identify the power, its source, the grounds required, the facts that supplied them, and whether the power was used lawfully. 'This is what a good supervisor does before a file goes to the Crown,' he says, 'and what defence counsel will do the day it arrives on their desk. Better that you find the problems first.'

The method

Desjardins gives the class a five-part method for each step. First, describe the step in one sentence with its time: what the officer did. Second, name the power and its source: the statute, rule or case that authorized it. Third, state the standard: no grounds, reasonable grounds to suspect, reasonable grounds to believe, a warrant or a specific condition. Fourth, list the facts in the file that met or failed to meet the standard, with their times and sources. Fifth, give a rating: lawful, needs explanation, or problem, and say what the consequence of any problem would be. He tells them to be fair to the officers, who were making decisions at two in the morning, and honest about the law, which does not grade on a curve.

Amara Okafor asks whether a powers review is the same as the constitutional review the class did at the end of LES-111. Desjardins says they overlap but differ in focus: the LES-111 review asked whether rights were respected, while this one asks whether each power was properly founded and properly used. A search can be done respectfully but without authority, or with authority but beyond its scope. The two reviews together give the fullest picture of a file.

Step 1: the broadcast and the stop

At 02:22:30 dispatch broadcast Mira Osei's description. At 02:29:15 Officer Patel saw Kyle Brandt on Pine Street, three blocks east of the store, matching the description and walking away from the scene in the reported direction with a black backpack, and told him to stop because of a break-in. The power was the common law power of investigative detention under Mann, which needs reasonable grounds to suspect a connection to a particular crime. The facts, as Lesson 2 showed, were specific, fresh and connected to the crime: description, limp, backpack, distance, direction and timing. Patel told Brandt the reason at once. Rating: lawful.

Step 2: the arrest

At 02:29:40, when the unit 12 officers arrived and saw drill handles sticking out of the open backpack, they arrested Brandt for breaking and entering. The power was section 495(1)(a), arrest for an indictable offence on reasonable grounds to believe, since breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling-house is an indictable offence under section 348. The added fact of tools visible in the bag, together with everything Patel already knew, crossed into reasonable grounds to believe. The officers told Brandt why he was arrested. Rating: lawful.

Step 3: the backpack search

Within a minute of the arrest, the officer removed and searched the backpack, finding the drills, the saw, gloves, a flashlight and a phone. The power was search incident to arrest under Cloutier and Caslake. The arrest was lawful, the search was truly incidental to it, for the reasonable purposes of finding evidence of the break-in and weapons, and it was done promptly at the scene. The contents were photographed in place and recorded. Rating: lawful.

Step 4: the phone

The phone was seized from the backpack. The officer did not open it, placed it in a signal-blocking bag and handed it to investigators, who later obtained a warrant to examine it. The seizure itself was lawful as part of the search incident to arrest, and the decision not to search its contents without a warrant was correct. But the property record shows the phone was bagged at 02:31 and not logged into the property room until 06:40, and the officer's notes do not say where it was between 03:15, when she left the station for another call, and 06:40. A defence lawyer could use that gap to question whether the phone was handled properly, which matters because its location data supported the garage warrant. Rating: needs explanation. The fix is a supplementary note from the officer about where the phone was, which she can make honestly if she remembers, and a reminder at the next briefing about logging exhibits before leaving the station.

Step 5: the look into the garage

On the morning of March 14, before any warrant was drafted, a patrol officer opened the unlocked side door of Brandt's rented garage on Birch Lane and looked inside with a flashlight, seeing boxes with a hardware store logo. As Lesson 10 explained, Brandt had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the garage, opening the door to look in was a search, and no warrant, consent or exigency applied: the garage could easily have been watched from the street. Rating: problem. The observation must be excised from the information to obtain on review, and the breach will count in the section 24(2) analysis, though the evidence found later under the warrant may still be admitted if the warrant stands on other grounds and the breach was not part of a pattern. The case does not collapse, because of what Detective Sergeant Ali did next.

Step 6: the warrant application

Ali's information to obtain disclosed the garage observation, explained that the officer had acted without authority, and did not rely on it. It rested on three independent grounds: the neighbour's statement about boxes being carried in two days before the break-in, the lease found in Brandt's wallet, and the phone location data placing Brandt in the area of the garage at 02:20, obtained under a separate production order. It disclosed the neighbour's old conviction, the limits of the location data and Brandt's denial. It described the garage and the missing items precisely. Under Garofoli, a reviewing judge would excise the improper observation and ask whether the warrant could still have issued on the remaining facts; it could. The warrant was executed in daylight within its period, and the items were reported to the court. Rating: lawful.

Step 7: the release decision

Brandt was released within hours on terms tied to the risks: an undertaking not to attend the store and to keep the peace. His identity was confirmed, the evidence secured, he had ties to the community, and the conditions were minimal and practicable. Rating: lawful.

Step 8: notes and times

Most of the notes in the file are detailed and timed. But two problems carried over from earlier lessons remain. The probationary officer's detention note at 02:31 was out of order and corrected later with a late entry, as LES-104 discussed; the late entry was properly marked, but it will draw questions. And the record shows rights to counsel were given at 02:36, almost seven minutes after Brandt was first detained at 02:29:15, which LES-111 identified as a possible section 10(b) problem, since Suberu requires rights on detention unless there is a safety reason, and none is recorded. Rating: needs explanation.

Scoring the file

Desjardins asks the class to score each step: two points for lawful, one for needs explanation, zero for a problem. The scores are a teaching tool, not a legal test, but they make the shape of the file clear at a glance.

# Powers review of the Lakeshore Hardware file: 2 lawful, 1 needs explanation, 0 problem
steps = [("broadcast and stop", 2), ("arrest grounds", 2), ("backpack search", 2),
         ("phone seizure", 1), ("garage entry", 0), ("warrant application", 2),
         ("release decision", 2), ("notes and times", 1)]
labels = {2: "lawful", 1: "needs explanation", 0: "problem"}
for name, s in steps:
    print(f"{name:20} {labels[s]}")
score = sum(s for _, s in steps)
print("score:", score, "of", 2 * len(steps))
print("steps needing follow-up:", [n for n, s in steps if s < 2])

broadcast and stop   lawful
arrest grounds       lawful
backpack search      lawful
phone seizure        needs explanation
garage entry         problem
warrant application  lawful
release decision     lawful
notes and times      needs explanation
score: 12 of 16
steps needing follow-up: ['phone seizure', 'garage entry', 'notes and times']

The file scores 12 of 16. Five of eight steps are clean, two need explanation, and one is a clear problem. Desjardins tells the class that this is a realistic file: most real cases have a few soft spots, and the difference between a case that survives and one that does not is often whether someone found them early and dealt with them honestly. The garage entry was a real breach, but Ali's full disclosure meant the warrant could stand. Had he hidden it, the case might have collapsed when it came out in cross-examination.

What the prosecutor said

The Crown assigned to the case reviewed the file the week after the break-in. She accepted the charges, asked for a supplementary note about the phone's custody, flagged the garage entry for disclosure to the defence, and asked the service to address it with the officer involved, which the service did through coaching and a training bulletin on private places. She also asked for an explanation of the rights timing. Brandt later pleaded guilty to the two break-ins, and the garage entry was never litigated. Desjardins tells the class that this is the best outcome a powers review can produce: not a perfect file, but one whose weaknesses were found, disclosed and fixed before they could do harm.

Lessons for practice

The class closes the course by building a list of habits that would have prevented every soft spot in the file. Know which power you are using before you use it. Record the facts that give you grounds, with times, as you learn them. Tell people why at once. Search only within the power's scope, and seize and secure rather than search when a warrant is the normal route. Watch private places from outside while a warrant is obtained. Log exhibits before you leave the station. Disclose your mistakes. And remember that the release decision affects a person's life as much as the arrest. Desjardins says that if they carry these habits into the academy and the street, they will be the officers whose files come back from the Crown with no questions.

Presenting the review

Each student presents one step of the review to the class, as if briefing a supervisor. Desjardins gives them three minutes. The best briefings follow the five-part method in order, speak in plain language, and end with a clear recommendation. Jesse Morningstar's briefing on the release decision is singled out: he explains the conditions, why each was tied to a real risk, and what he would have done differently if Brandt had lived with the store owner's family, all in under two minutes.