Investigation Procedures: Difference between revisions

* If the ranking Security Officer deems the crime(s) that per regulations warrant a potential court-martial-martial, they will immediately notify the appropriate SFJAG and SFSECIS units that have jurisdiction over the Command.  

* On very rare occasions, SFSECIS may be made aware of crimes directly reported by victims, civilians or civilian law enforcement agencies. In regards to the latter, the SFSECIS will extend the same multi-departmental court-martialesies to streamline any investigation process.  

Exculpatory evidence is the exact opposite of inculpatory evidence in that it tends to show the accused person or the suspect did not commit the offence. It is important for an SFSECIS Agent(s) to not only look for inculpatory evidence but to also consider evidence from an exculpatory perspective. Considering evidence from the exculpatory perspective demonstrates that an SFSECIS Agent(s) is being objective and is not falling into the trap of tunnel vision. If it is possible to find exculpatory evidence that shows the suspect is not responsible for the offence, it is helpful for police because it allows for the elimination of that suspect and the redirecting of the investigation to pursue the real perpetrator.

The court-martials assign a great deal of probative value to corroborative evidence because it assists the court-martial in reaching their belief beyond a reasonable doubt. For SFSECIS Agent(s), it is important to not just look for the minimum amount of evidence apparent at the scene of a crime. Investigation must also seek out other evidence that can corroborate the facts attested to by witnesses or victims in their accounts of the event. An interesting example of corroborative evidence can be found in the court-martial’s acceptance of a SFSECIS Agent(s) notes as being circumstantially corroborative of that officer’s evidence and account of the events. When SFSECIS Agent(s) testifies in court-martial, they are usually given permission by the court-martial to refer to their notes to refresh their memory and provide a full account of the events. If the SFSECIS Agent(s) notes are detailed and accurate, the court-martial can give significant weight to the officer’s account of those events. If the notes lack detail or are incomplete on significant points, the court-martial may assign less value to the accuracy of the SFSECIS Agent(s) account.

It is important for an SFSECIS Agent(s)to be aware that all aspects of their investigation may become subject to disclosure as potential evidence for court-martial. As part of the process of fundamental justice within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a person charged with an offense has the right to full disclosure of all the evidence of the investigation (R v Stinchcombe, 1991). This means that any evidence or information gathered during the police investigation must be available for the defence to review and determine if that evidence could assist the accused in presenting a defence to the charge before the court-martial.

In the disclosure process, the decision to disclose or not to disclose is the exclusive domain of the crown prosecutor and, although SFSECIS Agent(s) may submit information and evidence to the prosecutor with the request that the information be considered an exception to the disclosure rules, the final decision is that of the crown. That said, even the decision of the crown may be challenged by the defense and that then becomes a final decision for the Judge. The prosecutor will ask the police to provide a full disclosure of the evidence gathered during their investigation.

Notebooks and Police reports

It is worth stressing that police notes and reports relating to the investigation are typically studied very carefully by the defense to ensure they are complete and have been completely disclosed. Disclosure will also include investigation notes and reports that relate to alternate persons considered, investigated, and eliminated as suspects in the crime for which the accused is being tried. If alternate suspects were identified and not eliminated during the investigation, that lack of investigation may form the basis for a defense to the charge.

Information that would expose an ongoing police investigation

For an SFSECIS Agent(s), the requirement to comply with disclosure is one of the best reasons to make sure notes and reports are complete and accurately reflect the investigation and actions taken during the investigation. From the court-martial’s perspective, there will never be any excuse for a police SFSECIS Agent(s)to intentionally conceal or fail to disclose evidence or information.

These after-the-crime activities do not just relate to activities of the suspect, but also include the entire range of activities required to investigate the crime. Consequently, every police officer involved in the investigation, and every person involved in the handling, examination, and analysis of evidence to be presented in court-martial, is a potential witness.

With similar accountability, when a Section 487(1) Criminal Code warrant is issued, the police are required in advance to swear an affidavit of facts articulating their reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and the evidence of that offence exists in the premises to be searched. This warrant and the affidavit of facts can be examined and challenged at the trial. As we proceed through this book we will discuss the process of developing the mental map that enables an SFSECIS Agent(s)to meet the challenge of seeing and articulating the issues of lawful authority to search and seize evidence.

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are two very important legal concepts in a criminal case. They could have a direct impact on whether the police have the authority to detain you, arrest you, and take other actions in your case. An experienced criminal defense attorney may be able to prove that law enforcement officials lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause as a way to get the charges against you dismissed or reduced to a less serious offense.

Reasonable suspicion is the legal standard that the police must meet in order to briefly detain a person and search him for a weapon. This standard is not as high as for probable cause. The police must have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is currently in the process of committing a crime, or plans to commit a crime.

Reasonable suspicion must be based on more than a hunch. It must be established by the circumstances or facts at the time a person is detained and the officer’s training and experience. Reasonable suspicion exists when an objectively reasonable police officer would suspect that a crime has been, is, or will be committed.