[jolinar of malkshor]

Ok....this is how it will work. I will post a situation that happened. We can discuss the issues of the case and make predictions as to how the trial judge ruled.

After some discussion I will post the decision of the trial judge and further dicussion can take place. This will be repeated for the appeal process aswell. Anyone interested.....have at er.

Oh....and to make this a good discussion, refrain from looking up the case and seeing what actually happened.

CASE 1

Two plaincloths police officers were proactively policing a neighbourhood school hot spot. The two plaincloths officers observed the accused ("Grant") "walk by in a suspicious" manner, stare at the plaincloths officers in an an unusual manner and "fidgeted" with his pants and coat which looked suspicious. The two plaincloths police officers asked a uniformed officer to stop and chat with "Grant".

The uniformed officer stood in Grant's path, told him to keep his hands out front and began asking questions. The two plaincloths officers stood behind the uniformed officer. Grant was initially only asked for identification, but later asked if he had ever been arrested and whether he had anything he shouldn't have on him.

Although initially saying "no", he did admit to having a small amount of marijuana. When asked if he had anything else, he divulged that he had a loaded revolver. Grant was arrested, the revolver was seized from a waist pouch and he was charged with five firearm offences.

At trial, Grant introduced a motion to exclude the gun from evidence because his rights under the Charter had been violated (unlawful detention).

Do you think trial judge excluded the evidence?