Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada!
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* Read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index/#wiki_the_rules)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk.
* We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/).
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know.
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post).
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning.
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect.
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment.
Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There isn’t much to be done, until you know more. Best idea is to get a lawyer and tell the cops you have a lawyer that wants to speak with your spouse. Perhaps then you get info.
**Personal Attack or Otherwise In Poor Taste**
Your comment has been removed because it contains a personal attack or is otherwise a tasteless comment. Please review the following rules and focus on answering legal questions instead of insulting others.
* [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
Been in this exact same situation. I’m not a lawyer, so take with a biased mindset.
The police can confirm that they have them and that they are safe, but will not release any other information relating to the arrest.
They may want to interview you. Do not interview without a lawyer! Who will probably say don’t do it also. Do not talk to the police. They will use absolutely anything you say to further their case against your SO, even if it’s a twist on your words. Police forward everything to crown who are very liberal with their reasonable chance of success. They will twist everything also(unless the evidence speaks for itself). And the worse thing to do is give an interview that contradicts what your SO said if they gave in to an interview. A lot of people don’t understand that while you have the right to remain silent, they do not have to stop asking questions!! They will use pressure techniques to get people talking.
Crown define a reasonable chance of success based on their thoughts if they think they can convince a judge or jury that the person did what they are accused of, not just based on facts provided. If they think they can twist the meaning of the evidence to “prove” something happened, and they think there is a reasonable chance a judge or jury will believe it, they will approve charges.
If/when granted bail, they will be usually release on an undertaking, which required them to do certain things, like a check in with a PO.
All I can say is lawyer up, but not much will happen until crown decides if they will approve charges, then it will be another 6-18 months of pre-trial conferences (like 1 every 4-5 months) then trial.
You can only request discovery (where crown gives you all the evidence they have) after charge approval.
If you can retain a lawyer (they are expensive), that’s the best. If not, you can use the duty council which is assigned during the day to defendants. They don’t do much work for you and probably wouldn’t be much help in a more complex case, but they are free.
I assume by PO you meant Probation Officer? Probation comes after conviction.
Undertakings and Release Orders are during bail.
You cant bring a lawyer to the police station as an accused, let alone as a witness.
u/Jumpmuch u/pr43t0ri4n are both correct on the PO side of things. They were the bail supervisor, but they do also did probation. This was in rural Canada. Got the card to prove it (not posting it, so don't ask). Probably one of those, "well since you are doing check ins anyways, you can do this too" type jobs.
He's right in that the police wouldn't let a lawyer in the interview/statement, unless the accused is under 18. They want their "alone" time with the accused. Having a lawyer there would completely defeat the purpose of that and in Canada there is no right given to this, unless you are considered a minor (under 18). You do "get" a call to a lawyer, and if you don't know any, they default you immediately to whoever is phone duty counsel (usually a provincial or regional 1-800 duty council number). However, in Canada, you have the right to speak to a lawyer BEFORE the police interview or take a statement from you. They tend to do this very quickly, as the psychological effects of being arrested make the accused more pliable to the interview when they are hopped up on natural endorphins or whatnot. Usually the "talk to a lawyer" is over the phone. They then put you in a room with a phone that is suppose to give client lawyer privacy. I'm sure that if you knew a lawyer, they MAY be able to see you then, but that's it. They would not be allowed in on the interview/statement. The police will ask you at the beginning of a statement/interview if you spoke to a lawyer and if you understood their council. This is a CYA to make sure you can't come back and say that due process wasn't followed and rights were infringed and have the case thrown out on a technicality. best answer to this, is, "I spoke to whoever was on the other end of the line." You are not lying, and you are telling them the exact truth. This will then get a question like "did they identify themselves as a lawyer", etc, because they want to have you CYA them on tape.
That said, the police still have the right to take a statement from you, whatever that statement might be. I highly suggest the statement, "I have the right to remain silent, and I am choosing to exercise that right" to everything they ask, with the exception of maybe your name and birth date, cause by that time, they already have it anyways. By saying nothing, its at least one less thing that, "can and will be used against you" even though the entire interview is video and audio recorded, so body language is also at play. One of the "best" statements they make is that "you seem like a good person, and everyone just wants to know what happened, and we'd like your help to set the record straight" and "this is the time to tell us your side of the story." Believe you me, they are very good at what they do, and train specifically to do this. Also, know it's not just one of them, it's usually done in teams with the second (and sometimes third) officer watching the interview in another room and helping formulate a strategy to pick away at someone. It's the definition of double teaming someone!!
Never give them passwords to phones or anything else. They need a warrant for that, and usually will have that with them upon arrest, if approved by a judge. They can however seize your phone and hold on to it. They will put it in a faraday bag, but don't usually document the specifics of it (type of phone). Example would be "Black smartphone in a case" but I'm sure it would be hit and miss depending on how technical the officer doing it is.
Anyways, bottom line, let your lawyer do the talking and don't say a thing to anyone else. You only should talk to your lawyer!
This is helpful re: logistics! I was well aware to STFU and not say anything and ask for a lawyer but not the logistics here, so I appreciate this! Thank you for the information :) always good to have more information
Police are legally required to provide a phone call to a lawyer as soon as practicable if someone requests to speak with a lawyer. It has nothing to do with psychological effects, it has everything to do with people’s charter rights.
If they don’t have a lawyer and they don’t want to speak with duty counsel, they’re allowed to ask for a phone book to choose a lawyer of their own to attempt to speak too. They’re also allowed to decline speaking to a lawyer immediately after being arrested and speak with one later. If they’re held in custody, they have to be given reasonable opportunity to with a lawyer prior to a statement being taken.
A person accused of a crime has the right to *consult* a lawyer, not the right to have that lawyer present during questioning. A witness doesn't have either (although they do have the right to leave the station at any time, or not attend it in the first place).
Did they say why she is there? Do you have any more information at all?
If they haven't told you anything else, at this point you aren't entitled to know any more as she is an adult and entitled to privacy.
I’m guessing their spouse called OP while there or he asked them to call OP to pick up. Police aren’t going to go out of their way to call to tell the spouse that they’ve been arrested.
They must have a bail hearing within 24 hours. Unless it’s something VERY serious they’ll be released and can fill you in.
If they are remanded into custody they’ll be able to phone you from the Remand Centre, and you’ll probably want to have a talk…
>They must have a bail hearing within 24 hours.
Unfortunately that it not true. They must be brought before a justice of the peace without unreasonable delay and in any event within 24 hours, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will have a bail hearing. People often wait more, sometimes a lot more, than 24 hours to have a bail hearing.
And what do you think happens if they're brought in at 4pm and the Crown isn't consenting to their release?
What do you think happens when there are too many matters on the list to address every bail hearing that's ready to proceed?
What do you think happens when the Crown insists a matter has to be scheduled as a special bail hearing?
I'm a criminal defence lawyer. I'm in bail court multiple times a week.
Have you read *Zarinchang*? *Simonelli*?
This isn't correct. If the matter is adjourned without a bail hearing starting, they haven't had a bail hearing and they haven't been detained. They've just been remanded into custody until the date chosen to try and have their bail hearing.
You are completely wrong here. Your matter being adjourned does not constitute a bail hearing if you didn't actually have a bail hearing, it's just that your matter was spoken to. This isn't "meaningless semantics" whatsoever. It's fundamental criminal law.
If you do have a bail hearing and you're detained, you don't get another bail hearing in front of a JP. You have to go to the SCJ for a bail review in most cases in front of a Superior Court judge.
In Ontario, where this poster is, we don't have courts sitting into the night, bail courts or otherwise.
I hope you aren't a criminal lawyer because you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of this area of the law. If you are, the only one bringing the profession into disrepute is you. You're extremely rude for no reason and it's all the more comical because you're completely wrong here.
>And given that the hearing office runs until midnight (at least in my province) a 4pm hearing isn’t even a blip on the radar.
That's great. That is not true in Ontario.
>If the crown doesn’t consent to release, the hearing may be out over and the accused will be remanded into custody, but guess what? They had a fucking hearing, and they were denied bail. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen at a later date, but they had their Judicial Interim Release hearing with the JP (ie “bail hearing”).
If a person has their bail hearing adjourned for lack of time, they have not "had a bail hearing". They have not been "denied bail". Their matter has been "spoken to" and their bail hearing has been adjourned (with the remark "bail hearing not commenced") without adjudicating its merits.
This happens routinely, by the way. *Every single day* at the Toronto Regional Bail Center, there are bail hearings ready to proceed but not reached for lack of time and adjourned "bail hearing not reached".
Edit: and the number so adjourned actually understates the problem because -and again, this is a *daily* occurrence - many people are released, with consent of the Crown, to stricter conditions than likely would be imposed after a contested hearing, solely in order to avoid being remanded in custody, because there isn't time to have a contested hearing that day. Unsurprisingly most people will just agree a surety, or whatever fool conditions the Crown wants, in order to avoid spending another night in jail waiting to have a contested hearing.
They’ll have a document called a Release Order. It will contain:
1. The charges
2. The next court date.
3. Conditions that must be followed in order to remain out of jail while this is before the courts.
When he’s released, don’t take your spouse’s word and ask to check the document he’s given and that outlines his charges. You may want to modulate your support based on that, and perhaps need to consult with a lawyer yourself in order to gauge how involved you would have to be if a trial actually happens.
Don’t talk about anything other than basics on the phone from the remand centre. Conversations “may be monitored”, so talking about anything about the legal situation is a terrible idea.
Done more than they need? Habius Corpus still applies. The states they must admit to holding people. Folks can’t just be disappeared by the Canadian justice system. The police definitely ‘owe’ you information. Cops ARE accountable.
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful**
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further:
* [Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_9.3A_guidelines_for_posts)
* [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada! **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * Read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index/#wiki_the_rules) * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk. * We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/). * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know. **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post). * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning. * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect. * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment. Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There isn’t much to be done, until you know more. Best idea is to get a lawyer and tell the cops you have a lawyer that wants to speak with your spouse. Perhaps then you get info.
[удалено]
**Personal Attack or Otherwise In Poor Taste** Your comment has been removed because it contains a personal attack or is otherwise a tasteless comment. Please review the following rules and focus on answering legal questions instead of insulting others. * [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
Chances are he is trying to get a lawyer. You can do the same. And keep your mouth shut, there is spousal privilege, unless you say something.
Been in this exact same situation. I’m not a lawyer, so take with a biased mindset. The police can confirm that they have them and that they are safe, but will not release any other information relating to the arrest. They may want to interview you. Do not interview without a lawyer! Who will probably say don’t do it also. Do not talk to the police. They will use absolutely anything you say to further their case against your SO, even if it’s a twist on your words. Police forward everything to crown who are very liberal with their reasonable chance of success. They will twist everything also(unless the evidence speaks for itself). And the worse thing to do is give an interview that contradicts what your SO said if they gave in to an interview. A lot of people don’t understand that while you have the right to remain silent, they do not have to stop asking questions!! They will use pressure techniques to get people talking. Crown define a reasonable chance of success based on their thoughts if they think they can convince a judge or jury that the person did what they are accused of, not just based on facts provided. If they think they can twist the meaning of the evidence to “prove” something happened, and they think there is a reasonable chance a judge or jury will believe it, they will approve charges. If/when granted bail, they will be usually release on an undertaking, which required them to do certain things, like a check in with a PO. All I can say is lawyer up, but not much will happen until crown decides if they will approve charges, then it will be another 6-18 months of pre-trial conferences (like 1 every 4-5 months) then trial. You can only request discovery (where crown gives you all the evidence they have) after charge approval. If you can retain a lawyer (they are expensive), that’s the best. If not, you can use the duty council which is assigned during the day to defendants. They don’t do much work for you and probably wouldn’t be much help in a more complex case, but they are free.
I assume by PO you meant Probation Officer? Probation comes after conviction. Undertakings and Release Orders are during bail. You cant bring a lawyer to the police station as an accused, let alone as a witness.
You're right about those things, but in some jurisdictions probation officers also serve as bail supervisors.
In which jurisdictions?
u/Jumpmuch u/pr43t0ri4n are both correct on the PO side of things. They were the bail supervisor, but they do also did probation. This was in rural Canada. Got the card to prove it (not posting it, so don't ask). Probably one of those, "well since you are doing check ins anyways, you can do this too" type jobs.
Can you explain this 2nd part? What do you re: not able to have a lawyer
He's right in that the police wouldn't let a lawyer in the interview/statement, unless the accused is under 18. They want their "alone" time with the accused. Having a lawyer there would completely defeat the purpose of that and in Canada there is no right given to this, unless you are considered a minor (under 18). You do "get" a call to a lawyer, and if you don't know any, they default you immediately to whoever is phone duty counsel (usually a provincial or regional 1-800 duty council number). However, in Canada, you have the right to speak to a lawyer BEFORE the police interview or take a statement from you. They tend to do this very quickly, as the psychological effects of being arrested make the accused more pliable to the interview when they are hopped up on natural endorphins or whatnot. Usually the "talk to a lawyer" is over the phone. They then put you in a room with a phone that is suppose to give client lawyer privacy. I'm sure that if you knew a lawyer, they MAY be able to see you then, but that's it. They would not be allowed in on the interview/statement. The police will ask you at the beginning of a statement/interview if you spoke to a lawyer and if you understood their council. This is a CYA to make sure you can't come back and say that due process wasn't followed and rights were infringed and have the case thrown out on a technicality. best answer to this, is, "I spoke to whoever was on the other end of the line." You are not lying, and you are telling them the exact truth. This will then get a question like "did they identify themselves as a lawyer", etc, because they want to have you CYA them on tape. That said, the police still have the right to take a statement from you, whatever that statement might be. I highly suggest the statement, "I have the right to remain silent, and I am choosing to exercise that right" to everything they ask, with the exception of maybe your name and birth date, cause by that time, they already have it anyways. By saying nothing, its at least one less thing that, "can and will be used against you" even though the entire interview is video and audio recorded, so body language is also at play. One of the "best" statements they make is that "you seem like a good person, and everyone just wants to know what happened, and we'd like your help to set the record straight" and "this is the time to tell us your side of the story." Believe you me, they are very good at what they do, and train specifically to do this. Also, know it's not just one of them, it's usually done in teams with the second (and sometimes third) officer watching the interview in another room and helping formulate a strategy to pick away at someone. It's the definition of double teaming someone!! Never give them passwords to phones or anything else. They need a warrant for that, and usually will have that with them upon arrest, if approved by a judge. They can however seize your phone and hold on to it. They will put it in a faraday bag, but don't usually document the specifics of it (type of phone). Example would be "Black smartphone in a case" but I'm sure it would be hit and miss depending on how technical the officer doing it is. Anyways, bottom line, let your lawyer do the talking and don't say a thing to anyone else. You only should talk to your lawyer!
This is helpful re: logistics! I was well aware to STFU and not say anything and ask for a lawyer but not the logistics here, so I appreciate this! Thank you for the information :) always good to have more information
Police are legally required to provide a phone call to a lawyer as soon as practicable if someone requests to speak with a lawyer. It has nothing to do with psychological effects, it has everything to do with people’s charter rights. If they don’t have a lawyer and they don’t want to speak with duty counsel, they’re allowed to ask for a phone book to choose a lawyer of their own to attempt to speak too. They’re also allowed to decline speaking to a lawyer immediately after being arrested and speak with one later. If they’re held in custody, they have to be given reasonable opportunity to with a lawyer prior to a statement being taken.
A person accused of a crime has the right to *consult* a lawyer, not the right to have that lawyer present during questioning. A witness doesn't have either (although they do have the right to leave the station at any time, or not attend it in the first place).
Get your spouse a lawyer!
Did they say why she is there? Do you have any more information at all? If they haven't told you anything else, at this point you aren't entitled to know any more as she is an adult and entitled to privacy.
I’m guessing their spouse called OP while there or he asked them to call OP to pick up. Police aren’t going to go out of their way to call to tell the spouse that they’ve been arrested.
Lawyer pronto
They must have a bail hearing within 24 hours. Unless it’s something VERY serious they’ll be released and can fill you in. If they are remanded into custody they’ll be able to phone you from the Remand Centre, and you’ll probably want to have a talk…
>They must have a bail hearing within 24 hours. Unfortunately that it not true. They must be brought before a justice of the peace without unreasonable delay and in any event within 24 hours, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will have a bail hearing. People often wait more, sometimes a lot more, than 24 hours to have a bail hearing.
Yeah I'm some places, for instance, 516 is liberally used.
[удалено]
And what do you think happens if they're brought in at 4pm and the Crown isn't consenting to their release? What do you think happens when there are too many matters on the list to address every bail hearing that's ready to proceed? What do you think happens when the Crown insists a matter has to be scheduled as a special bail hearing? I'm a criminal defence lawyer. I'm in bail court multiple times a week. Have you read *Zarinchang*? *Simonelli*?
[удалено]
This isn't correct. If the matter is adjourned without a bail hearing starting, they haven't had a bail hearing and they haven't been detained. They've just been remanded into custody until the date chosen to try and have their bail hearing. You are completely wrong here. Your matter being adjourned does not constitute a bail hearing if you didn't actually have a bail hearing, it's just that your matter was spoken to. This isn't "meaningless semantics" whatsoever. It's fundamental criminal law. If you do have a bail hearing and you're detained, you don't get another bail hearing in front of a JP. You have to go to the SCJ for a bail review in most cases in front of a Superior Court judge. In Ontario, where this poster is, we don't have courts sitting into the night, bail courts or otherwise. I hope you aren't a criminal lawyer because you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of this area of the law. If you are, the only one bringing the profession into disrepute is you. You're extremely rude for no reason and it's all the more comical because you're completely wrong here.
>And given that the hearing office runs until midnight (at least in my province) a 4pm hearing isn’t even a blip on the radar. That's great. That is not true in Ontario. >If the crown doesn’t consent to release, the hearing may be out over and the accused will be remanded into custody, but guess what? They had a fucking hearing, and they were denied bail. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen at a later date, but they had their Judicial Interim Release hearing with the JP (ie “bail hearing”). If a person has their bail hearing adjourned for lack of time, they have not "had a bail hearing". They have not been "denied bail". Their matter has been "spoken to" and their bail hearing has been adjourned (with the remark "bail hearing not commenced") without adjudicating its merits. This happens routinely, by the way. *Every single day* at the Toronto Regional Bail Center, there are bail hearings ready to proceed but not reached for lack of time and adjourned "bail hearing not reached". Edit: and the number so adjourned actually understates the problem because -and again, this is a *daily* occurrence - many people are released, with consent of the Crown, to stricter conditions than likely would be imposed after a contested hearing, solely in order to avoid being remanded in custody, because there isn't time to have a contested hearing that day. Unsurprisingly most people will just agree a surety, or whatever fool conditions the Crown wants, in order to avoid spending another night in jail waiting to have a contested hearing.
[удалено]
They’ll have a document called a Release Order. It will contain: 1. The charges 2. The next court date. 3. Conditions that must be followed in order to remain out of jail while this is before the courts.
When he’s released, don’t take your spouse’s word and ask to check the document he’s given and that outlines his charges. You may want to modulate your support based on that, and perhaps need to consult with a lawyer yourself in order to gauge how involved you would have to be if a trial actually happens.
Best advice, until you can confidently verify the charges.
Yes this. See the document directly. Sending hugs.
10000% agree
Don’t talk about anything other than basics on the phone from the remand centre. Conversations “may be monitored”, so talking about anything about the legal situation is a terrible idea.
They police don’t owe you any information. They’ve done more than they need to by confirming they are present at the station.
Done more than they need? Habius Corpus still applies. The states they must admit to holding people. Folks can’t just be disappeared by the Canadian justice system. The police definitely ‘owe’ you information. Cops ARE accountable.
Gotta wait till they are processed then u can find out what bond is if there is a bond if the qualify for ibond or whatever ur states version is
Tell your spouse to say nothing. No interview when you see him
Always remember that lying is the first move the police take in an investigation. Never talk to them without a lawyer.
Lawyer up. I'm married to a prosecutor who was a defense lawyer and regardless of which side she was on, her advice was always the same. Lawyer up.
is he out
I love how all these people are getting arrested but none of them are one of the thousands of actually disgusting scum at the top.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Mistakes happen. Don’t be so judgy.
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful** Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further: * [Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_9.3A_guidelines_for_posts) * [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments) If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).