Drug Charges

Client charges with very serious offences including Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Drug Trafficking (Cocaine and Fentanyl) and Possession of a Loaded Firearms involving proactive police surveillance and search resulting in the location of a “secret compartment” in the vehicle containing drugs, cash and a loaded gun.  Case proceeded through the Preliminary Inquiry at the Provincial Court and was then scheduled for trial at the B.C. Supreme Court.   In the last week before the trial, the prosecutor provided some late disclosure which led to further communications and letters between defence counsel and the prosecutor as a risk of an adjournment loomed over the case.  Mr. Shapray was able to negotiate for all charges against his client being DROPPED with a plea by the passenger in the vehicle.  Client has been facing lengthy driving prohibition and mutli-year federal jail sentence. – NOT GUILTY

Molly Shamess was lead counsel on a complex drug case (PPT) in Prince George.  Ms. Shamess ultimately brought a delay application (Jordan Application) due to Crown and systematic delay seeking a remedy of a Judicial Stay of Proceedings.   The application was successful which resulted in the case against the accused being discontinued.

Mr. Shapray and Ms. Shamess were successful in challenging a search on a rural property in Chilliwack that contained a number of outbuildings.  The facial challenge to the search warrant resulted in a finding by the trial judge that the search of the mobile home on the property was not properly authorized.  Charter breach found and evidence excluded.

Ms. Shamess successfully challenged the facial validity of a search warrant on a residence, and the police’s failure to comply with their obligations after they seize property. Trial judge agreed that the police breached the client’s Charter rights to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, and ruled that the evidence from the search of the residence and of the client’s vehicle should be excluded from trial. – CASE DROPPED.

Client was charged with trafficking MDMA after selling them to an undercover police officer at a music festival. The client was searched incident to his arrest and was found in possession of a larger “dealer bag” of various controlled substances. The Crown initially sought a jail sentence, but Mr. Beckett was able to persuade the Crown to agree to a joint submission for a Suspended Sentence with only one year of probation. – NOT GUILTY

Client pulled over for an alleged unsafe lane change. Police searched his person and his vehicle, and seized the vehicle, a cell phone, and a quantity of cash the client used for his lawful business. Police returned the vehicle after being contacted by counsel, but refused to return the cash and cell phone. Ms. Shamess argued successfully that the police had no basis to continue detention of the cash and cell phone, and a judge ordered it returned to the client.

Client arrested for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking and released at the scene without charges. Police seized his vehicle and refused to return it until counsel filed an application with the court for its return, after which they returned the client’s vehicle.

Client charged with possession of drugs and firearms seized from two residences, where he was found at the scene. Counsel argued that the search warrant for one of the residences was insufficient, The judge agreed that the warrant was insufficient and that the search of the residence violated the client’s Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Counsel later argued there had been an unreasonable delay in the client’s trial, and the judge agreed, resulting in a stay of proceedings on all the charges.

Client was charged with possession cocaine and heroin and fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking. Police executed a search warrant at the client’s house and found large quantities of drugs. The matter proceeded to trial, where Mr. Beckett challenged the search warrant and argued for an acquittal. The challenge to the search warrant was successful, and the client was found. – NOT GUILTY