Law360 Canada ( November 14, 2018, 8:35 AM EST) -- Appeal by the accused from convictions for drug-related offences. The police, after receiving an anonymous tip and observing the appellant’s residence, arrested the appellant for suspected drug trafficking. Police immediately applied for a search warrant for the residence. Police executed the warrant and found drugs in the home. The appellant argued the trial judge erred in not excluding the drugs on the ground that the search was unlawful due to his alleged arbitrary detention and the breach of his right to counsel. Police did not allow the appellant to speak to his lawyer until after the warrant had been executed several hours after his arrest. The officers followed a practice that routinely prevented arrested persons from accessing counsel if the police intended to obtain a warrant to search a place for drugs and believed that the place had a connection to the arrested person. The rationale behind this practice was that there was always a possibility that allowing an arrested person to speak to their lawyer could put the officers executing the warrant at risk or jeopardize the preservation of evidence. The trial judge held that a search of a suspected drug dealer’s residence engaged sufficient concerns about officer safety and the preservation of evidence to justify some delay in providing the arrested individual with access to counsel. The trial judge concluded, however, that there was no justification for the delay of about 80 minutes after the residence had been secured before the appellant was permitted to contact counsel. In considering the impact of the breach on the appellant’s rights, the trial judge noted that the police did not question the appellant while he was detained without access to counsel. The trial judge found no causal connection between the breach and the obtaining of the evidence during the search. He characterized the interference with the appellant’s Charter-protected interests as moderate. The trial judge determined that the police misconduct made a strong case for exclusion, the nature of the interference with the appellant’s rights made a moderate case for exclusion but society’s interest in an adjudication on the merits tipped the balance in favour of admissibility....