R. v. Sandeson, 2017 NSSC 197

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: R. v. Sandeson , 2017 NSSC 197 Date: 2017 08 24 Docket: CRH No. 449840 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. William Michael Sandeson DECISION – VOIR DIRES 1, 2 AND 3 Revised Decision: The text of the original decision has been corrected according to the attached erratum, dated August 28, 2017 Judge: The Honourable Justice Joshua Arnold Heard: January 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31; February 1, 3, 6, 7, 8; and April 20, 24, 26, 2017, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Counsel: Susan MacKay and Kim McOnie, for the Crown Eugene Tan and Brad Sarson, for the Defendant INDEX

Section Paragraph No. Background 1 VD1 Witnesses 24 Sergeant Kim Robinson 26 Detective Constable Bobby Clyke and Detective Constable Randy Wood 61 Frances Myketyn Driscoll 64 Sergeant Charla Keddy 66 Sergeant Ron Hines 83 Constable Marshall Hewitt 89 Sergeant Derrick Boyd 93 Detective Constable Roger Sayer 130 Constable Robbie Baird 144 Constable Marc MacMullin 147 Constable Mirko Markovic 150 Constable Jason Shannon 153 Detective Constable Donnie Buell 158 Constable Joseph “Jody” Allison 160 William Sandeson 166 VD1 Analysis 172

Voluntariness of the First Statement 175 Detention 203 The Text Messages 216 Sandeson’s Jeopardy 233 Charter Section 24(2) 268 The Second Statement 271 The Third Statement 285 Probative Value vs. Prejudicial Effect 301 VD2 Analysis 310 The Exigent Search 312 Charter Section 24(2) 355 Conclusion 358 By the Court: Background [ 1 ] This decision pertains to three voir dires conducted in the course of William Sandeson’s trial for murder. [ 2 ] Taylor Samson went to William Sandeson’s apartment on August 15, 2015. He was reported to the police as a missing person the next day.

The Major Crime Unit became involved on August 17, 2015. Mr. Sandeson came to the attention of the police on August 18, 2015, and was interviewed and driven home. Later that day, Sandeson became a suspect and was arrested for kidnapping, obstruction of justice and drug trafficking, On August 19, 2015, he was arrested for the first-degree murder of Samson.

After eight weeks of trial and four days of deliberations, on Sunday, June 18, 2017, the jury convicted Sandeson of first-degree murder. [ 3 ] Voir Dire 1 (VD1) relates to the admissibility of three statements Sandeson provided to police and text messages of Sandeson’s obtained by police. [ 4 ] Voir Dire 2 (VD2) relates to a search conducted by the police under exigent circumstances at Sandeson’s apartment, and subsequent searches pursuant to search warrants and production orders of his apartment. [ 5 ] Voir Dire 3 (VD3) deals with the admissibility (or editing) of statements two and three, as they were not excluded during VD1. [ 6 ] VD1 and VD2 were held from January 18 to February 8, 2017, with additional written submissions filed on February 21, March 31, and April 6, 2017.

Due to receiving new submissions on the doorstep of the trial, on April 7, 2017, I provided counsel with bottom line decisions in relation to VD1 and VD2. [ 7 ] Following receipt of my bottom line decisions, telephone conferences were held with counsel leading up to the trial. One topic of discussion between counsel was the possible editing of the second and third statements given to police by Sandeson on August 18 and 19, 2015. Counsel provided briefs via email on April 14 and 15, 2017. Following commencement of the trial on April 18, further submissions were made during VD3 on April 20, 24, and 26.

My bottom line decision for VD3 was provided to counsel in writing on April 26. [ 8 ] In an effort to avoid further inconvenience to the jury I did not adjourn the trial to prepare written decisions in relation to VD1, VD2 and VD3. Having had time post-trial to complete these decisions these are my written reasons in relation to: 1. The admissibility of the statement of Sandeson taken by Sergeant Charla Keddy on August 18, 2015 (“the first statement”); 2. The admissibility of the text messages obtained from Sandeson during the course of the police taking the first statement; 3.

The admissibility of the statement of Sandeson mainly taken by Detective Constable Roger Sayer on August 18, 2015 (“the second statement”); 4. The admissibility of the statement of Sandeson mainly taken by Constable (now Corporal) Jody Allison on August 19, 2015 (“the third statement”); 5. The legality of the exigent search conducted at Sandeson’s apartment on August 18, 2015, and admissibility of the evidence seized during the exigent search; and 6.

Editing of the second and third statements. [ 9 ] The defence provided a brief dated December 19, 2016, outlining their position in relation to the admissibility of the various statements. Some clarification as to the defence position was requested and the position of the defence was confirmed in correspondence from Mr. Tan dated January 22, 2017, which states in part: In

summary, at the time of filing submissions, the Defence position could be stated: 1. At the time of Statement 1, with Sgt. Keddy, Mr. Sandeson was already a suspect, or, in the alternative, was detained, and should have

been provided a right to counsel accordingly; 2. The seizure of the text messages required a clear and unequivocal waiver by Mr. Sandeson, and, having failed to afford Mr. Sandeson his right to counsel, the seizure of his text messages was a violation of

section 8 of the Charter ; 3. Statements 2 and 3 were conducted in a manner which suggests that Mr. Sandeson was, in fact, being investigated for a homicide rather than for kidnapping. As such, there was either a change in jeopardy, or defective provision of Mr. Sandeson’s original right to counsel; 4. Between statements 2 and 3, and/or during statement 3, there was a change in jeopardy based on the discovery of new evidence which should have prompted a new and discrete opportunity to consult with counsel, which was not afforded to Mr. Sandeson; and 5.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, large portions of statements 2 and 3 must be excised as they are far more prejudicial than they are probative, in that significant portions are simply the interrogators’ soliloquies which do little more than to repeat allegations of guilt. [ 10 ] On January 27, 2017, Mr. Tan stated: The discussion of the text messages appears as issue number three that’s identified. The statement of issues begins on page 8 of my brief, My Lord, and five specific issues are identified and they are identified in chronological order.

Issue number 1, with respect to the first uncautioned statement by Sandeson to Keddy, was this statement given voluntarily? More specifically, was this statement the product of an inducement? Issue number two, if this first statement was voluntarily made, was this statement made in violation of Sandeson’s right to counsel, on the basis that he had been detained? Statement number three, were there any changes that occurred during the first statement that triggered Sandeson’s right to counsel, or a violation of any other Charter right?

Statement number four, were there changes in jeopardy during the cautioned interrogations such that Sandeson’s right to counsel was triggered again? Issue number five, if all statements are found to be voluntary and admissible should all or part be excluded on the basis that the prejudice to Sandeson outweighs the probative value?

Statement number three then goes, sorry, issue number three goes on to speak about the text messages starting at page 14 of the brief, My Lord, and then going over to the next page on the second paragraph, the burden is upon the Crown to prove, on a balance of the probabilities, an implied, informed consent was given for that seizure. No discussion occurred in relation to the viewing or seizure of the text messages, and the conversation simply flowed on from, sorry, from it should be an portion of the interview to another, sorry, should flow from one portion of the interview to the other.

It has already been well established that no caution or warning had been given to Sandeson regarding his voluntary participation in this statement, and an examination of the phone, it is respectfully submitted, required such caution. Considering all the context of this statement, specifically the inducement, the failure to accord Sandeson his right to counsel, the failure to even provide him with advice that he can refuse, it is submitted that the Crown is unable to meet this burden, and that, at the very least, all of Sandeson’s text messages must be excluded. [ 11 ] Mr.

Tan also argued: With respect to voluntariness, Crown bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were made on a voluntary basis and for the purposes of our application there are three separate incidents of statements being given by Mr. Sandeson to what I would suggest a person of authority. The first I’m going to refer to as the Keddy interview. The second being a two

part interview which I will break up in my submissions referred to as the Sayer interview and the Allison interview. With respect to the Charter breaches again it is the applicant, the accused, that bears the burden on a balance of probabilities to demonstrate that there has been a Charter breach and of course provided that the accused is able to establish that then the court must engage in the weighing exercise under 24(2).

There are some other burdens which will become of significance with respect to the text messages, but again I’m going to park that at the time being. [ 12 ] He later continued: With respect to the Sayer interview question, we didn’t raise the question of voluntariness with respect to the Sayer interview. Question is whether there is a change in jeopardy. The change in jeopardy to which we would point would be the subjective belief that Mr. Samson had passed away.

That is reflected in the line of questioning. [ 13 ] Despite the fact that Sandeson did not appear to clearly be contesting voluntariness of statements two and three, due to the ambiguous nature of some of Tan’s representations on this issue, in providing counsel with my bottom-line position on admissibility on April 7, 2017, I ruled that the Crown had proven the voluntariness of all three statements beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 14 ] Then, on April 26, 2017, Tan confirmed that voluntariness was not in issue in relation to statements two and three: Court : Just to clarify as Ms.

MacKay has noted in her materials, I’m guessing it’s Ms. MacKay or I’ll say the Crown, I don’t know if Ms. McOnie wrote it or Ms. MacKay. MacKay : It’s me, My Lord. Court : That is that the defence position in relation to these two statements was that there was no issue of voluntariness in relation to what I’ll call statements two and three or what is referred to on the transcripts as statement one in two parts. Sorry, the caution statement. Is that correct Mr. Tan? Tan : Um, I’m going to have to be quite frank, I haven’t gone over my notes, but that was my suspicion at that time, My Lord.

I haven’t listened to the transcript or listened the audio. Court : Let me try. Just so we’re all starting on the same page here, which I want to make sure that we are because there is in the transcript during your argument on January 27 at 12:19:47 you indicate with respect to the Sayer interview we didn’t raise voluntariness.

Now there may be other areas where, but that was the one that that the court could locate. Tan : Yes, and in looking at my own written submissions, My Lord, I certainly would agree that that’s not an issue that was raised previously. If it wasn’t raised in my written submissions, my recollection is that in my oral submissions and what not I stuck fairly closely to my written submissions. Court : You did. Tan : So I, yes, if that’s the case, then I would agree.

Court : And that would spill over to the second part of that statement as well, that is, we’ve got, I’m calling them statement two and three, so you didn’t raise in your arguments voluntariness in relation to either statement two or statement three. Is that correct? Tan : I would agree with that, My Lord. Court : However, there is some confusion in relation to the way that your brief was organized, I will say, and this isn’t a criticism, it’s just a comment, and that is that in your brief at page, do you have your brief with you? Tan : I do, My Lord.

Court : At page 20 of your brief, you say, and this is reiterated in what you wrote to the court on the editing issue, the header is, “In the event that all statements are found to be voluntary and admissible should all or part be excluded on the basis that the prejudice to Sandeson outweighs the probative value?” Ok. Tan : Yes. Court : So when you say in the event that all statements are found to be voluntary, what are you referring to? Because the first statement, that is the one to Charla Keddy, doesn’t contain any soliloquies. Tan : Correct. Court : There’s no argument in relation to that.

Tan : No, I would agree with that, My Lord. Court : And so, then, sorry. Tan : What I think I was referring to is that we did have an argument, we did pose an argument with respect to the first statement with respect to Sgt. Keddy and that it was not voluntary based on an inducement primarily and some other factors. Court : Right. Tan : Perhaps the language there then probably is a little bit overbroad given that that was the sole statement for which voluntariness was contested.

Court : And we go to, just to add to it, page 22, first line, finally, if this Honourable Court declines to exclude any of the statements on basis that they were either involuntary, or in violation of his right to counsel, it is respectfully submitted that large portions of the statements ought to be excised on the basis that these portions, but again there was no soliloquy or request for editing in relation to Sgt. Keddy’s statement. Tan : And I would agree with that. Court : So that comment could only be related to statements two and three for which defence has not contested and has conceded voluntariness.

Tan : Correct, My Lord. Court : Right, is that correct? Tan : Correct, My Lord. Court : Ok. Thank you. [ 15 ] On April 26, 2017, Mr. Tan went on to state variously: 11:04:59 Tan : I certainly will confirm what’s been said on the transcript and that is there were expressed concessions in the past and my only question really, My Lord, is the court having identified further issues and potentially issues going to either

section 7 or voluntariness, the court on its own motion had asked for submissions. So previously, I agree, there appears to have been an expressed concession, whether that is necessarily binding or whether the court chooses to accept that, I guess that’s the question. If the court is inclined to accept that then so be it and we can move on and if not, if the court continues to want to hear submissions on it, I’m prepared either way.

11:13:00 Tan : As you can see in the submissions of my friend, this area was actually raised at the preliminary inquiry by defence as a steady erosion of the

section 7 rights and the

section 10(

b) rights for which the Honourable Judge Derrick found that that was not the case, but what I would say is what we have here is I think what I’m making are, My Lord, is really more appropriate to the question of editing than it is to an out right breach of any of the statements or any out right breach of any Charter rights. Court : Ok. Thank you. That’s fine. Tan : See what we have here and I think it’s not specifically a breach of Charter

section 7, but it is perhaps a collateral breach or a roundabout breach. 11:16:40 Court : And all of this, Mr. Tan, you are submitting to me in the context of what appropriate editing would be, correct? Tan : Correct, My Lord. Court : Just for my benefit and for the Crown’s benefit since they are hearing this for the first time. Ms. MacKay, you following this? MacKay : Sorry My Lord. Second statement. Court : Mr.

Tan is making an argument in relation to what the appropriate editing should be and he is at statement 2. [ 16 ] This decision therefore will not include a detailed analysis regarding the voluntariness of statements two and three, nor will it deal with s.7 of the Charter as it might relate to the admissibility of statements two and three in their entirety, as those issues were conceded by the defence.

Section 7 of the Charter was only relied on by Sandeson regarding the editing of statements two and three. [ 17 ] Sandeson objected to the admissibility of the first statement on the basis of voluntariness.

He also said that his right to counsel in accordance with s. 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was breached during the taking of the first statement as his rights in this regard were not explained to him. [ 18 ] He objected to the admissibility of the text messages obtained by the police during Keddy’s interview, claiming a violation of his s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. [ 19 ] Sandeson says that his s. 10 Charter right to counsel was violated during the course of the police eliciting his second and third statements, as he claims his jeopardy changed and, as a result, he should have been re-arrested and re-cautioned for murder early in the interview process. [ 20 ] Sandeson also argues that if the statements were voluntary (and he agrees that the second and third statement were voluntary) and not obtained in violation of s.10 of the Charter , then they should not be admitted, or should be edited, as their probative value is outweighed by their prejudicial effect. [ 21 ] Finally, Sandeson says that there were no actual exigent circumstances to search his apartment on August 18, 2015, and, as a result, any evidence seized during the search was taken in violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

A number of search warrants were prepared relying on the text messages obtained from his cell phone during the taking of statement one and also relying on the DVR evidence discovered during the exigent search as grounds. Sandeson argues that if the evidence obtained from his cell phone or from the exigent search was obtained unconstitutionally, then the subsequent searches are also unreasonable. [ 22 ] The defence chose to divide the bulk of their arguments into two voir dires .

I will deal with VD1, VD2 and VD3 together in this decision, as the facts and chronology overlap significantly. [ 23 ] There were thirty-three witnesses called on VD1 and VD2. Some witnesses testified on both VD1 and VD2. Sandeson testified on his own behalf in relation to VD1. VD1 Witnesses [ 24 ] Because of the high speed at which the missing persons investigation progressed in August 2015, I will review in some detail the evidence of the witnesses called on VD1, relating to the admissibility of Sandeson’s statements and the text messages obtained from his cell phone. The witnesses called on VD1 include Sgt.

Kim Robinson, Sgt. Charla Keddy, Sgt. Derrick Boyd, Sgt. Ronald Hines, Sgt. Marshall Hewitt, Sgt. Robbie Baird, Sgt. Marc MacMullin, Cst. Mirko Markovic, Cst. Jason Shannon, Det. Cst. Roger Sayer, Cst. Joseph Allison, Det. Cst. Donald Buell, Det. Cst. Bobbie Clyke, Det. Cst. Randy Wood, Frances Myketyn Driscoll, and William Sandeson. [ 25 ] Many of these witnesses were also called on the trial proper and testified about the same events in front of the jury as were discussed during the voir dires .

Additional witnesses, who were not called on these voir dires , were also called to testify in front of the jury about issues that overlap with the events detailed in these voir dires . Of course, my decision on VD1, VD2 and VD3 only takes into account those facts called during the voir dires . Sergeant Kim Robinson [ 26 ] Sergeant Kim Robinson testified on both VD1 and VD2. [ 27 ] An investigative triangle was organized to conduct the investigation into the disappearance of Taylor Samson. Sergeant (then

Corporal) Kim Robinson was the lead investigator, Sergeant Derek Boyd was the team lead and Detective Constable Roger Sayer was the file co-ordinator. When Robinson was promoted in December 2015, Sayer became the lead investigator. [ 28 ] Robinson testified that Samson was originally reported as a missing person to a patrol officer on August 16, 2015. Missing persons are usually handled by the Vice Squad.

According to Robinson, Samson’s matter was referred to the Major Crime Unit because the initial complaint revealed 1) that Samson had a serious medical condition that may not have been treated for several days; and 2) that Samson was supposed to be meeting someone for a drug transaction in close proximity to his home on August 15, 2015, was to return home where his friends were within fifteen minutes, but had not been heard from since he left.

Drug transactions are inherently dangerous and a missing person in that context is treated differently by the police. [ 29 ] A “ping” (a method of location a phone in relation to the closest cellular towers) was requested for Samson’s cell phone, with no success, as the phone was either out of range or turned off. Based on the information filtering through to Robinson, she believed that Samson’s life was in danger because he suffered from a serious liver issue that required daily medication.

Therefore, she immediately requested a production order to obtain information about his phone. [ 30 ] When Samson’s telephone information became available, the police determined that the last number to contact his phone was from a “705” area code. Analysis suggested that this area code represented an internet telephone service provider. The call in question was made through an IP address associated with 189 Cavalier Drive, in Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia. Further investigation revealed that this address houses a group home for disabled adults. [ 31 ] Det. Cst. Bobby Clyke and Det. Cst.

Randy Wood were dispatched to the Cavalier Drive address. Robinson was advised that on August 17, 2015, Clyke and Wood spoke to two employees of the home, Felicia Butler and Frances Myketyn Driscoll. [ 32 ] On August 18, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Robinson received a call from Christine Firth, the manager of the group home and Sandeson’s co-worker.

Firth recounted a conversation she had with Felicia Butler, another employee of the group home, who said that Sandeson told her that he had some communication with Samson’s phone before he went missing. [ 33 ] Robinson said that on August 18, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Joan Stark, the C.I.D. office administrator, received a call from Sandeson, who wanted to speak with someone. This information was passed along by Robinson to Sgt. Keddy. At that time the police had no idea that Sandeson was involved in the drug trade. [ 34 ] Robinson thought Sandeson was a friendly associate of Samson.

She conducted a cursory check of Sandeson on Facebook and did not see Samson listed as one of his friends. [ 35 ] Keddy was tasked with interviewing Sandeson. She arranged via telephone for Sandeson to attend the police station for an interview around 1:00 PM on August 18, 2015. [ 36 ] At that point, Sandeson was merely the last person the police could identify as having spoken with Samson. He was not a police suspect. The police thought Sandeson and Samson were friends. They were hoping to obtain information from Sandeson that might help them decide where to look next.

He was considered a person of interest, which Robinson described as an associate of someone, or someone that might have knowledge that could help the police move their investigation forward. Robinson reiterated that the term “person of interest” does not equate to that person being a suspect. [ 37 ] Keddy intended to use the “soft” interview room, also known as the SAIT interview room, to speak to Sandeson. This room is used for interviewing witnesses, complainants or victims, but not suspects.

Robinson said that the SAIT interview room doors are always left open or unlocked and no one being interviewed in that room is detained. [ 38 ] Robinson said that Keddy met Sandeson at police headquarters around 1:00 PM on August 18, 2015. Sandeson had an appointment at Canadian Tire to have his vehicle repaired at 3:30 PM that day and wanted to get the interview completed in a timely fashion. [ 39 ] Robinson had no contact with Sandeson the day of Keddy’s first interview. The room where members of the investigative triangle were working had video screens showing a live feed of the Sandeson interview.

She was not present when Sandeson entered the interview room with Keddy, but did watch parts of the interview through the monitor in the investigative triangle’s room. [ 40 ] At this time there were fifteen police officers working on the investigation because of their understanding of Samson’s medical condition. While watching bits and pieces of the live-feed of Sandeson’s interview with Keddy, Robinson felt him to be personable and accommodating.

He did not appear to be withholding information and was considered a friendly associate of Samson’s, not a suspect. [ 41 ] Robinson observed Sandeson tell Keddy that he had been in contact with Samson using a Smartphone app called Next Plus. He said he had subsequently deleted that app, but offered to re-install it during the interview. Keddy suggested he go home to re-install the app, but Sandeson wanted to look after things while he was there. Sandeson and Keddy had trouble with the WiFi in the interview room and could not re-install the app.

Instead of going home to try there later that night, Sandeson offered to try re-installing the app in the hallway of the police station if he could connect to WiFi. He went into the hallway and successfully re-installed that app. [ 42 ] Robinson was aware that once the app was re-installed, other police officers had asked Sandeson if he would leave his phone for analysis or allow them to take pictures of the text messages. Sandeson did not want to leave his phone but agreed to have the police take pictures of the text messages.

The pictures were taken by Detective Constable Marshall Hewitt of Forensic Identification Services. [ 43 ] When the interview concluded somewhere between 2:30 and 3:00 PM, Keddy and another officer, Constable Ron Hines, drove Sandeson home so that he could make his appointment at Canadian Tire. [ 44 ] In the meantime, Hewitt had printed a copy of the photographs of the texts on Sandeson’s phone and presented them to the investigative triangle. Upon review of the texts, Sayer and Boyd felt that there were inconsistencies between Sandeson’s interview and

the text messages. They felt he had not been forthcoming with Keddy. In particular, Sandeson had told Keddy he was expecting to meet Samson to obtain a small sample of marijuana, yet the texts indicated he was meeting him to purchase twenty pounds of marijuana. Additionally, in the interview Sandeson told the police that Samson had not shown up for the meeting with him the evening he went missing, but the texts implied otherwise.

Sandeson was now considered a suspect and was placed under police surveillance. [ 45 ] Of note to Robinson was the fact that Sandeson never mentioned during the interview that he was participating in a transaction with Samson that involved large amounts of marijuana. Instead, he told Keddy that he had tried a small sample of marijuana a few days before August 15, 2015, but had not liked it and had arranged to meet Samson on August 15, to try another sample.

He said Samson had not shown up for that meeting. [ 46 ] The police were aware that Sandeson’s home on Henry Street was close to Samson’s home on South Street. Once the text messages were reviewed and Sandeson became a suspect, the police attempted surveillance. They lost sight of him for some time, but later found him around 8:30 PM on Leaman Drive in Dartmouth. [ 47 ] At the time the text messages were reviewed, Robinson was aware that Detective Constable Robert Fox had interviewed Linda Boutilier, Taylor Samson’s mother, who had provided information about Samson’s liver condition.

Robinson was also aware that Constable Jennifer Lake had spoken with Kim Hirtle, a pharmacist, about the liver condition. Robinson did not review the statements taken from Boutilier or Hirtle, but she had received briefings about their evidence. Based on these briefings, Robinson felt that Samson’s life was in danger, as he had been without his medication for several days. [ 48 ] Robinson was also aware that Samson was involved in the drug trade.

Samson’s girlfriend, Mackenzie Ruthven, told the police that Samson had left home on August 15, 2015, close to 10:30 PM, to conduct a drug transaction and had never returned. She had expected him to return within fifteen or twenty minutes, as the meet was supposed to be nearby. He had not taken his wallet, keys or medication with him.

She said Samson was meeting a new drug “client” and was nervous about going alone, but could not find anyone to go with him. [ 49 ] Through the production order relating to Samson’s cell phone, the police were aware that the last telephone conversation Samson had took place at 10:22:59 on August 15, 2015, and was from the 705 area code associated with the IP address at 189 Cavalier Drive, Lower Sackville.

Since Ruthven said Samson left his residence at approximately 10:30 PM that evening, the police knew that was within seven minutes of the 705 call. [ 50 ] Robinson said that once the text message conversation between Sandeson and Samson was compared with Keddy’s interview of Sandeson the triangle felt he had been deceptive and the police became concerned that Samson was being held captive in Sandeson’s apartment. They also understood that Samson was suffering from a serious liver condition and required regular medication.

Sergeant Boyd, Staff Sargent Greg Mason, Sayer and Robinson discussed the situation and decided to enter Sandeson’s apartment on the basis of exigent circumstances to look for Samson. [ 51 ] Robinson said that inside the apartment the police found a surveillance system hooked up to a Digital Video Recorder and a cache of magic mushrooms. They did not find Samson in Sandeson’s apartment and did not see any signs of foul play. [ 52 ] Robinson testified that Constable Jason Shannon disconnected the DVR system during the exigent search to preserve evidence.

She said they also located an empty box for a 9 mm handgun, but did not find the gun. She said this would be important information for the police to have when arresting Sandeson. [ 53 ] The police decided that Sandeson was arrestable for misleading the police, kidnapping, and trafficking (according to Robinson, the trafficking was based on the drugs found at 1210 Henry Street during the exigent search). Accordingly, Sandeson was arrested the evening of August 18, 2015, on Leaman Drive. The police then drafted an Information to Obtain for a search warrant for Sandeson’s apartment.

The warrant was issued at approximately 4:00 AM on August 19, 2015. [ 54 ] Sandeson was interrogated in three distinct segments. As noted earlier, Robinson observed bits and pieces of his first interview by Keddy on August 18, 2015. Sandeson was only a person of interest at that time and was not cautioned or provided his Charter rights. [ 55 ] The second interview of Sandeson took place on August 18, 2015. Sandeson was interviewed by Sayer. In that interview Sandeson was cautioned and provided his s. 10 Charter rights, including his right to counsel. [ 56 ] The third interview took place on August 19, 2015.

The interview was conducted mainly by Allison, with Sayer involved at times during the interview as well. [ 57 ] Robinson said that on August 19, 2015, at approximately 9:30 AM she was advised in a briefing that Forensic Investigative Services (FIS) had discovered targets with bullet holes in them in Sandeson’s apartment. They also found a bullet hole in a window sill, with a bullet in it. Robinson did a walk-through of the apartment with FIS and was shown the bullet and the hole. FIS located in Sandeson’s apartment a backpack containing bloody money and a receipt from Winners for a shower curtain.

FIS also detected blood in the apartment, but not a significant amount and not connected to anyone. Therefore, the police did not consider Sandeson’s jeopardy to have changed at that time. [ 58 ] The police decided to hold the bullet-related information back. Allison, who was interrogating Sandeson, was not advised of the discovery of the bullet hole. That way if a shooting in Sandeson’s apartment came up during the interview it could only have been raised by a suspect with first hand knowledge of the shooting. [ 59 ] Near the conclusion of the third interview, Sandeson’s jeopardy changed.

He disclosed that Samson was shot in the back of the neck or head in the Henry Street apartment and his body removed. While Sandeson did not admit that he shot Samson, prior to these comments the police had no reason to believe Samson was dead, only that he was possibly tied up and being held captive. [ 60 ] Due to the change in Sandeson’s jeopardy, the police re-arrested him for murder, gave him a fresh police caution and re-read

him his Charter rights, suspending further questioning until he had an opportunity to call his lawyer. Detective Constable Bobby Clyke and Detective Constable Randy Wood [ 61 ] On August 17, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Clyke was tasked with conducting interviews in relation to the Samson missing person’s case. The first productive task for Clyke was taking a statement from Ruthven.

After that, Clyke and Wood were tasked to attend at 189 Cavalier Drive to investigate the 705 telephone number linked to an IP address registered to that civic address. [ 62 ] Upon arrival at 189 Cavalier Drive they spoke with Frances Myketyn Driscoll who confirmed the address housed a residential group home for persons with physical disabilities. Myketyn Driscoll was an employee there. She said the WiFi was open and none of the residents had access to the computer, although all of the staff had access.

She provided the police with a list of employees who were working on August 15, 2015, the last date the 705 number showed up on Samson’s phone. That list included Felicia Butler and William Sandeson. [ 63 ] As they were leaving 189 Cavalier Drive, Myketyn Driscoll stopped them to advise that she had just looked at the Halifax Regional Police website and had noted that the missing person had last been seen in the South Street area, that Sandeson also lived in this area, and that Sandeson had told his co-workers that a friend of his had been the victim of a home invasion and assault the previous Thursday.

Frances Myketyn Driscoll [ 64 ] On August 15, 2015, Myketyn Driscoll was working at 189 Cavalier Drive, Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia, a home for adults with intellectual difficulties who require around-the-clock care. Sandeson was one of her overnight shift co-workers. [ 65 ] Myketyn Driscoll said that on August 17, 2015, the police arrived unexpectedly. She woke up another co-worker, Felicia Butler, to help her care for the residents while the police were asking her questions.

While the police were outside she went on the Halifax Regional Police Facebook page and saw that Samson had gone missing from the South Street area. Butler said she told the officers that Sandeson lived on South Street and that he had told staff about his friend having been attacked the previous week. She felt that maybe the same people who had attacked Sandeson’s friend may have attacked Samson. Sergeant Charla Keddy [ 66 ] Sergeant Charla Keddy testified on VD1. On August 18, 2015, Keddy was tasked to interview Sandeson.

Boyd told her that Sandeson had called the police and said he thought they were looking for him. Keddy was aware that Samson’s last telephone contact was with Sandeson’s 705 area code telephone number. Keddy was also made aware that Samson had some involvement in drug activity. [ 67 ] At no time, before or during this interview, did Keddy believe Sandeson to be a suspect in any crime related to Samson.

I watched Keddy testify, and she did not waiver on this point. [ 68 ] Keddy said that after being advised of Sandeson’s call to the police station during the morning of August 18, 2015, she called him and left a voicemail. She then sent him a text message identifying herself and indicating that she wanted to speak with him. Sandeson returned her call, and Keddy offered to meet him wherever might be convenient to him. He offered to meet her at the police station.

If he had chosen a location outside of the police station for the interview, Keddy said she would have met him wherever he wished and would have recorded the conversation. She offered to pick him up and drive him to the station, but Sandeson declined. [ 69 ] Keddy said that Sandeson reported to the commissionaire’s desk at police headquarters at about 1:00 PM and she went to meet him. She was wearing business casual clothes with a visible badge and a gun in its holster. Keddy described Sandeson as cooperative, polite, and in good spirits.

Sandeson advised her from the outset that he had an appointment at Canadian Tire later that afternoon to get his car repaired. He said he was anxious to complete the interview as he was going camping for the weekend with his girlfriend. Keddy said she did not arrest or detain Sandeson at any time during her dealings with him, and had no grounds to do either. [ 70 ] Keddy said that Sandeson appeared to understand everything she said to him. She did not offer him any promises or any favours. She did not threaten him. He did not appear to be intimidated by her.

Having watched the video of the interview, I conclude that Keddy’s description of Sandeson’s demeanor is accurate. [ 71 ] Keddy escorted Sandeson from the main desk, outside and around to the exterior of police headquarters, and they entered the building through a side door. That side door is locked from the outside, but has an interior push bar with no locking mechanism, allowing people to exit easily from the inside. This door was the easiest entrance to the SAIT interview room (soft interview room).

The SAIT interview room was about twenty feet away from the exterior door. [ 72 ] There are two doors to the SAIT interview room, one swinging in each direction. Because that interview room is used for witnesses and victims only, and not suspects, the doors do not lock. Keddy closed the doors to keep noise out, but they were not locked. The furniture in this room includes a soft leather couch. [ 73 ] Keddy explained to Sandeson that the police were investigating Samson as a missing person. They were aware that Samson was involved in drug activity, but not of the extent of his involvement.

Keddy told Sandeson that they knew Samson was involved in drug activity, but that drugs were not a part of the police investigation and that he would not get in trouble if he discussed drug activity. She wanted to put Sandeson at ease by explaining that she was not interested in drug activity, only in locating Samson. Keddy had no reason to suspect Sandeson was involved in drug activity.

She did not want him to hold back information that might help locate Samson simply because of a fear of discussing drug activity. [ 74 ] Because Sandeson was not a suspect Keddy did not give him a police caution or explain his Charter rights prior to the interview.

[ 75 ] The interactions between Sandeson and Keddy in the SAIT interview room were video and audio recorded. Constable Ron Hines was monitoring the interview from a nearby room. [ 76 ] During the interview Sandeson told Keddy that Samson had never shown up at his apartment. [ 77 ] Keddy said that Sandeson was cooperative throughout, and volunteered to show her his phone.

Toward the end of the interview she and Sandeson left the room and went into the hallway so that Sandeson could connect to the police WiFi and reload the Next Plus texting app, which he said he had deleted from his phone prior to the police interview as he was concerned an investigation into Samson might implicate him in drug activity. [ 78 ] In the hallway Sandeson connected to the WiFi to start downloading the app. Boyd, who was also present in the hallway, chatted with him about track and field while the app was downloading.

Keddy could not recall Boyd asking if the police could keep the phone overnight to examine the texts, but agreed that would not have been out of the ordinary. [ 79 ] Keddy agreed that at no time was Sandeson provided any sort of caution explaining that he could decline to provide copies of the text messages to the police. [ 80 ] When Sandeson and Keddy went back into the interview room after acquiring the app, Sandeson lost the WiFi signal while waiting for Hewitt to attend and take photos of the text messages. Therefore, the app stopped re-loading.

Keddy had started to look at the texts when he first reloaded the app, but she was interrupted when the WiFi connection was lost. She decided to wait until Hewitt took photos of the texts before reviewing them. At no time was she suspicious of Sandeson. [ 81 ] Sandeson, Keddy and Hewitt then went back into the hallway where Sansdeson again connected to the WiFi and finished downloading the Next Plus texting app.

This allowed him to finish loading and viewing the texts. [ 82 ] At the conclusion of the interview Keddy and Hines offered to drive Sandeson home to pick up his car so that he could make his appointment at Canadian Tire. Keddy did not review the text messages until she returned to headquarters after dropping Sandeson off at his home. When she returned to the station she reviewed some of the texts, then left for vacation. Sergeant Ron Hines [ 83 ] On August 18, 2015, Hines was tasked to assist Keddy with the Samson missing person investigation.

He first tried to contact Nathan Halfpenny and Dustin Chambers, but was unable to locate anyone by those names. Keddy and Hines were then tasked to speak to Sandeson. [ 84 ] Close to noon hour Keddy advised that she had spoken to Sandeson who agreed to come into police headquarters to speak to her. Sandeson arrived at approximately 1:00 PM that day. Keddy took Sandeson to the SAIT interview room, which was usually reserved for interviewing victims of sexual assault.

The SAIT room has double doors which are kept closed, but these doors were not locked at any time. [ 85 ] Hines, who was wearing plain clothes, with a visible badge and sidearm, set up to watch Keddy interview Sandeson from the monitoring room which was twenty to thirty feet away from the interview room. He watched the interview via video monitor. Hines did not meet with Sandeson prior to the interview. On the two occasions Keddy came out of the interview room with Sandeson, Hines did not interact with them. [ 86 ] Hines did not hear Keddy give Sandeson any cautions or warnings.

He did not hear Keddy tell Sandeson whether he could decline any of the police requests. He did hear her tell Sandeson that anything he said could be used in the police investigation. [ 87 ] Once the interview was complete, Sandeson said he was going home so that he could make it to an appointment. The interview ended at 2:42 PM. Shortly thereafter Keddy and Hines drove Sandeson home to his Henry Street apartment in an unmarked police vehicle. [ 88 ] Hines described Sandeson as friendly, polite and in good spirits throughout his contact with him.

Hines did not make Sandeson any promises, did not threaten him or make efforts to intimidate him in order to have him provide a statement to the police. Constable Marshall Hewitt [ 89 ] Hewitt has been a member of the Forensic Identification Services (“FIS”) since 2010. On August 18, 2015, Boyd requested that an FIS member record text messages from a cell phone. Hewitt was advised that Boyd had a witness who was consenting to have text messages on his cell phone photographed. [ 90 ] Hewitt met with Boyd and Sandeson in the main hallway of police headquarters just outside of the FIS office.

Hewitt was not wearing a badge or sidearm. He did not have direct contact with Sandeson. [ 91 ] While taking photos of the texts on the screen of the cell phone Hewitt overheard Boyd and Sandeson making small talk and discussing university sports and track and field. It appeared to Hewitt that Sandeson wanted to help the police as much as he could. [ 92 ] Once he completed taking the photos, Hewitt downloaded them to an iDrive in the FIS office and David Webber, a civilian, printed them. Sergeant Derrick Boyd [ 93 ] Sergeant Derrick Boyd testified on both VD1 and VD2.

Boyd was the team leader on the Samson investigation. He was responsible for obtaining resources for the investigation, which started as a missing person file on August 16, 2015. Staff Sgt. Fred Priestly felt the matter looked suspicious and had Detective Constable Lake and Detective Constable Blake working on the

disappearance. Boyd then asked for assistance from Robinson and Sayer. [ 94 ] Boyd was advised that Samson had been missing since Saturday, August 15, 2015. He was told in the briefing that Samson’s girlfriend, Mackenzie Ruthven, his mother, Linda Boutilier, and his stepmother, Karen Burke, all confirmed that he was missing. They reported that it was unusual for him to disappear and that he had left his wallet, keys and medication at home. [ 95 ] Ruthven initially told the police that Samson had gone for a walk, that he was supposed to return in fifteen to twenty minutes, but that he had not returned.

Samson’s friend, Andrew Mecke, told the police that Samson was going to conduct a drug transaction with someone he knew for three or four pounds of marijuana. The transaction was supposed to take place near Samson’s home and he had wanted Mecke to go with him. [ 96 ] Boyd was advised that the police had the last telephone number that made contact with Samson before he disappeared. This number was associated with an IP address linked to 189 Cavalier Drive, Lower Sackville. He assigned Clyke and Wood to investigate.

Clyke and Wood attended at that address and reported that it was a group home for severely challenged individuals and that only the staff had access to the computer. However, the WiFi was open and did not require a password, so people immediately outside the home could use it as well. Wood told Boyd that Sandeson worked at the group home and was reportedly tired at work on Friday.

Sandeson apparently had explained to staff he had been up all night consoling a friend who had been the victim of a break and enter. [ 97 ] Boyd said he did not recall Wood telling him that another employee at the group home, Frances Myketyn Driscoll, felt compelled to say something, as she knew Sandeson lived near South Street and that Samson was reported missing from the South Street area. [ 98 ] Boyd assigned Keddy to speak with Sandeson. On August 18, 2015, Boyd was notified that Sandeson had called police dispatch.

According to Boyd this was prior to the police contacting Sandeson and therefore he believed that Sandeson made the decision to call the police himself. Keddy spoke to Sandeson at midday to arrange an interview. Boyd testified that he did not know how Sandeson had come to call the police as they had not yet reached out to him at the time he called. Sandeson was not a suspect. [ 99 ] Boyd testified that Sandeson came to police headquarters at 1:00 PM on August 18, 2015. He was taken to the soft interview (SAIT) room usually used to take statements from victims.

He described the soft interview room as having a couch, chairs and carpeting. The room is not used to interrogate suspects. Boyd said that you need a pass code to get into the area of the building that houses the soft interview room from the outside, but you do not need a pass code to get out. [ 100 ] During Keddy’s interview with Sandeson, Boyd was eighty to one hundred feet away in the project room, monitoring the interview off and on. He noted that during the interview Sandeson was having a hard time connecting to the WiFi. He therefore took Keddy and Sandeson to a corner near the exterior doors.

This allowed Sandeson to obtain a wifi signal and reinstall the texting app. [ 101 ] Once it appeared that the texting app was installed, Boyd asked Sandeson if he could keep his phone for a few days. Sandeson said the police could not keep his phone that long. Boyd then asked Sandeson if he could get FIS to take photos of the texts, and Sandeson said “ok”. [ 102 ] Boyd agreed that Sandeson was never told he had a right to decline the police requests.

Boyd said that he believed that since Sandeson refused the police request to keep his phone for analysis he must have understood that he could decline the request for photos to be taken. While Keddy then continued to interview Sandeson, Boyd went to look for an FIS member to take photos of the texts. Hewitt was available to take the photos. [ 103 ] Hewitt went into the soft interview room, but Sandeson lost the WiFi signal. Keddy, Hewitt, and Sandeson therefore left the interview room and walked down the hallway to a shredder box where Sandeson could get a signal.

Sandeson was trying to remember his password, which he eventually recalled as being “password”. [ 104 ] Hewitt took photos and screenshots of the texts on Sandeson’s phone, with Keddy’s assistance. While Hewitt was taking the photos, Boyd chatted with Sandeson about track and field. Boyd described Sandeson as being sober, pleasant, cooperative, and intelligent. He appeared to understand everything that was transpiring. Boyd testified that he did not promise, threaten or intimidate Sandeson in any way. [ 105 ] Once the photos were taken, Keddy and Sandeson went back into the interview room.

Then Keddy and Hines drove Sandeson home. Hewitt went to FIS to print the photos of the texts. Boyd returned to the project room to monitor the interview. [ 106 ] Once Keddy left to drive Sandeson home, Boyd watched the video of the interview. He could not see himself in the video as the camera only captures what was occurring in the soft interview room. He could, however, hear his own voice in the background when Keddy and Sandeson were in the hallway.

Boyd agreed that during the interview Keddy told Sandeson that she did not care about drug transactions, Sandeson was not given a police caution and was not provided with any Charter rights. [ 107 ] Hewitt prepared a booklet of photographs of the text messages, which he placed on Sayer’s desk. Sayer showed Boyd the booklet. Members of the investigative triangle were eventually provided with Hewitt’s photos of the texts, and they discussed the interview. Of particular interest was the final text message exchange between Sandeson and Samson.

Sandeson had said he had not met with Samson, but the messages strongly implied that he did meet with Samson. It also appeared from the messages that Sandeson was heavily involved in drug activity, that a significant drug deal was organized between Samson and Sandeson, and that they had actually met the evening of August 15, 2015. The police found this suspicious. [ 108 ] Boyd believed, as a result of information provided by Lake, that Samson had a liver condition that required daily medication or he would get very ill.

Boyd was aware that Samson’s girlfriend had also provided the police with information about Samson’s liver condition and medication, but he was unable to recall while testifying what she had reported. [ 109 ] After Sandeson left the police station, and once that new information was reviewed and considered by the investigative triangle,

the police determined that surveillance should be set up on Sandeson. They contacted Sergeant Cechetto, who was in charge of surveillance, but the organizational process was too slow for Boyd’s comfort. Therefore, two detectives who were canvassing in the area of Samson’s apartment were assigned to conduct the surveillance. The surveillance team saw Sandeson arrive at and then leave Canadian Tire.

They lost sight of Sandeson after this, but located him later in the area of Lancaster Drive in Dartmouth. [ 110 ] Once the text messages were reviewed, Boyd concluded that Samson was in Sandeson’s 1210 Henry Street apartment, and that he was in trouble and needed immediate help. Boyd believed this was a drug deal gone bad, and that Samson needed his liver medication. In Boyd’s experience a search warrant usually takes approximately five hours to obtain.

Boyd, Robinson and Sayer discussed the situation and were of the opinion that exigent circumstances now required the police to enter Sandeson’s apartment right away, without waiting for a warrant. [ 111 ] Boyd said that information about Samson’s health was gathered from several sources: 1) the pharmacist, Kim Hirtle, who was interviewed by Lake; 2) Samson’s girlfriend, Mackenzie Ruthven, who was interviewed three times; and 3) Samson’s mother, Linda Boutilier, who was interviewed twice on August 17, 2015, once by Fox and once by Det. Cst.

Jonathan Beer. [ 112 ] Boyd said that he initially heard about Samson’s health issue during a conversation with Lake, who had spoken to Hirtle. Boyd said there was a written report in the file about Hirtle’s information, but he could not recall whether he read it before or after making the determination regarding exigent circumstances. Boyd did not watch or monitor the interviews Fox and Beer conducted with Boutilier. He did partially review some of the interviews with Ruthven.

He did not review any of the interviews in their entirety. [ 113 ] Boyd thought that Samson would become sick if he did not have his pills for “a few days”. He thought that Lake had spoken with Samson’s actual pharmacist. He was not aware that, in light of the date of his last prescription and the number of pills the police found unused in the bottle at Samson’s apartment, it appeared Samson was not regularly taking the three and a half pills per day as prescribed.

He was also unaware that Hirtle advised she was unaware for which condition the pills were actually prescribed, and that they could have been prescribed for several different issues. [ 114 ] Boyd said he thought that Boutilier had advised that if Samson went for four or five days without his medication his liver would get inflamed and he would have to go to the hospital.

He was not aware that Boutilier actually said that Samson could go two weeks without his pills, after which his liver would become enlarged, but it would not be life threatening. [ 115 ] Boyd was not aware of all of the information provided by Ruthven.

He agreed that before the decision to enter Sandeson’s apartment without a warrant, he had read Ruthven’s first police interview with Constable Trudell, in which Ruthven said that Samson told her that he took his pills once per day and would have to miss taking them for a year before anything negative would occur. [ 116 ] Boyd also agreed that he had not read Ruthven’s second police interview of August 17, 2015, prior to deciding to task police to enter Sandeson’s apartment.

He agreed that in her second statement Ruthven said that to the best of her knowledge, Samson could go a couple of months to a year without taking his pills without immediate health concern. [ 117 ] Boyd had reviewed the file entry of Fox’s interview with Boutilier prior to making the exigent circumstances decision. Boyd did not speak to Beer before the police went into the Henry Street apartment.

Boyd said that in a case like Samson’s, reports from various police members are turned over quickly. [ 118 ] Boyd said that prior to making the decision to enter Sandeson’s apartment he reviewed some of the texts between Sandeson and Samson, Sandeson and Jordan McEwan, and Sandeson and Jefferson Guest, as Hewitt had taken photos of all of those exchanges from Sandeson’s phone. McEwan and Guest were friends of Sandeson.

However, Boyd did not review all of the texts, as he felt time was of the essence in relation to Samson’s health and safety. [ 119 ] Boyd said that before sending the police into Sandeson’s apartment he was aware that: Sandeson had a roommate; did not have a criminal record; was not known to the police; came forward to the police on his own and contacted the police voluntarily; could have gone home to download the app with the texts, but instead remained at the police station to connect to WiFi; would have known what was said in the texts; and gave his phone to Hewitt and Keddy to allow the police to take photos of the texts. [ 120 ] Despite Sandeson’s apparent good background and his cooperation with the police, Boyd felt that upon review of all of the information, considering Sandeson’s interview with Keddy and a review of the texts, exigent circumstances existed requiring the police to enter Sandeson’s apartment.

He testified: Q: At one point during your direct examination you testified something to the effect of you felt you believed that Taylor Samson was inside 1210 Henry Street. Why? A: Because of the text messages between Taylor and Will. It appears they were going to have a, do a drug transaction on the Saturday night and at the end of those messages “I’m out back of the building now. Is that your bike parked by the door” and then Will says “I’m walking out now”, I believed that Taylor arrived and went up for them to do this drug transaction. Q: Ok.

Those texts, sorry, those texts were exchanged on the Saturday evening, August 15? A: Yes. Q: And this is Tuesday, August 18, when you’re making this decision. A: Yes. Q: So in spite of that gap in time, it was still your belief that Mr. Samson remained in 1210, at 1210 Henry Street. A: Yes.

[ 121 ] Boyd said that if he was only aware of Samson’s health issues, without the drug rip-off information, he was not sure if he would have ordered the exigent search. However, if he only had the information suggesting Samson may have been the victim of a drug rip-off in Sandeson’s apartment, without the health issues, he might have still ordered entry under exigent circumstances: Q: You say that you yourself believed that Taylor Samson’s life was in danger because he had not had his medication for his liver condition for approximately three days as of August 18, 2015. Is that correct? A: That’s correct.

And the fact that it was a drug deal, potentially, that could have gone wrong and just in drug rips the bad guy that’s doing the drug rip may want to do some harm to figure out where the victim keeps his drugs and his money. Q: Ok. Now, hypothetically speaking are you able to separate those two issues and say if there had not been a drug transaction and you only had knowledge of Mr. Samson’s health condition and believed him to have been in that particular address, 1210 Henry Street, would you have made the same decision to enter that residence without a warrant on the grounds of exigent circumstances?

A: Just based on the liver condition and not on the… Q: Right. A: It’s hard to say. Q: Ok, fair enough. A: Yeah. Q: Conversely, if there had been no health concerns, previous health concerns with respect to Mr. Samson and the only information you had was that he appeared to have been at this address on Henry Street, appeared to have been going there for a drug transaction, hadn’t been seen for approximately three days, if that was all the information you had, would you have made the decision to enter the residence without a warrant on the grounds of exigent circumstances?

A: Possibly. [ 122 ] Boyd was questioned as to why an ambulance was not on scene when they conducted the search. He advised that if Samson had been located they would have had one dispatched quickly. [ 123 ] Prior to deciding whether to enter the apartment, members of the investigative triangle discussed the decision and consulted with Staff Sgt. Greg Mason. Boyd felt that based on his policing experience, people in the drug world are dishonest. According to the texts, Samson had drugs worth as much as $90,000.

While the possibility that Samson had just taken off with the money crossed Boyd’s mind, he felt something more nefarious had happened to him. At approximately 6:00-6:30 P.M. on August 18, 2015, less than an hour after the decision to enter the apartment under exigent circumstances, police entered Sandeson’s apartment to conduct an initial warrantless search. [ 124 ] Boyd was eventually advised that the police did not locate Samson during the exigent search, and no other evidence was obtained from Sandeson’s apartment during that search.

A significant amount of magic mushrooms were found, but nothing to indicate whether Samson had ever been there. The police did find a DVR system and security camera. The contents of the DVR were not reviewed during the initial entry. Officers on scene were told to hold and preserve the apartment scene in anticipation of obtaining a warrant. The police wanted to determine if Samson had been there and had been removed. [ 125 ] More than five hours later a search warrant was issued. FIS attended Sandeson’s apartment three times on August 19, 2015, starting at approximately 5:26 AM.

Inside they located blood, money with blood on it, a receipt for a new shower curtain, and a bullet. Boyd recalled Sayer asking FIS at the briefing following the search whether enough blood was found to indicate someone was deceased. The FIS answer was “no”. [ 126 ] In the meantime, police officers were tasked with arresting Sandeson for kidnapping Samson, misleading the police, and drug trafficking. At approximately 8:30 P.M. on August 18, 2015, Sandeson was arrested and taken to police headquarters. He was interviewed that night by Sayer.

When Sandeson went to sleep for the night, Boyd went home. [ 127 ] Boyd could not recall the exact time, but he described a briefing on August 19 to discuss what FIS had located at Sandeson’s apartment. A decision was made regarding holdback evidence, described by Boyd as evidence that only a small number of officers would be aware of, along with the actual perpetrator. In this case that information would potentially include the use of a gun, the calibre of the bullet, the location where the victim was shot, where the shot would have struck the victim and how many shots were involved.

Boyd was advised by FIS that a bullet was located in a window casing, but they could not say whether it was used to shoot Samson. [ 128 ] On the second day of Sandeson’s interview, August 19, 2015, Boyd watched from the monitoring room as Allison interviewed Sandeson. Toward the end of that day, Sandeson’s jeopardy changed when he said Samson was dead. Sandeson said Samson had been shot in the back of the neck or head, and indicated that other parties removed his body. When Sandeson said this, Boyd and Sayer conferred, then went to the interview room to advise Allison to arrest Sandeson for murder.

Following the murder arrest, Sandeson called his lawyer. In booking, when Sandeson’s photo was being taken, Boyd noticed a mark on his shoulder: Q: So let’s just talk very briefly about that third occasion and that third occasion being at booking. A: Ok. Q: Ok, and so that’s after the conclusion of Jody Allison’s interview. A: Yes.

Q: Ok, and that would have happened sometime on August 19. A: Yes. Q: And do you recall directing either an Ident officer or somebody else to take pictures of Mr. Sandeson? A: Well, in booking they take photos of someone being charged anyway, and there was a mark on Will’s shoulder so, I noted that they were taking a photo. They take photos of tattoos and stuff too, so I noted they were taking a photo of the mark on his shoulder. Q: Alright, and so that was, do you recall directing that person to specifically take that picture?

A: I don’t know if I directed, but I know that I was checking to see that, you know, it was included in the photo. I just looked to see, oh ok, it’s in there. [ 129 ] Boyd advised that Cst. Donnie Buell was the interview coordinator and selected the interviewers. Cst. Buell also participated in discussions with the triangle as to the strategy of each interview. Detective Constable Roger Sayer [ 130 ] Sayer testified that after Samson went missing on Saturday, August 15, 2015, Blake and Lake from the Vice Unit took the missing person’s complaint the next day.

On August 17, 2015, Sayer was asked to be a part of the investigative triangle and to act as file coordinator in relation to the missing person investigation. He was told that Samson had left his residence on foot on August 15. He had not taken his keys, wallet or medication with him. According to his girlfriend, he was expected to return within fifteen minutes. The police were told that Samson was participating in a drug transaction with a new client and was nervous, so he had asked friends to accompany him.

No one agreed to go with him. [ 131 ] Sayer said he had read Lake’s report about Samson’s liver condition and had also heard about it at the briefing. He knew that a production order had been obtained regarding Samson’s phone and that the last call was at 10:22 PM on August 15, 2015, from a 705 area code. This area code was associated with an IP address registered to 189 Cavalier Drive in Lower Sackville.

Police were tasked to attend at that address, the group home where Sandeson worked. [ 132 ] Sayer understood that a number of calls had been received from 189 Cavalier Drive, including one from the manager, Christine Firth.

Firth said she had heard from another employee, Christine Butler, that she had spoken with Sandeson and he confirmed that he had been communicating with Samson the evening of August 15, 2015. [ 133 ] The police felt that in order to move the investigation forward they needed to know who had contact with Samson before he disappeared. [ 134 ] Sayer said the police had information that if Samson did not take his medication within a few days his liver would start to break down and he would become very ill. [ 135 ] Sayer stated that when Sandeson contacted the police on August 18, 2015, he was not considered a suspect.

The police merely thought he could help them locate Samson. He was a “person of interest”, which Sayer described as someone who can provide information to the police about a file, as opposed to a “suspect”, described as someone who may have had a role in the offence. In order to change from a person of interest to a suspect, Sayer said, the police would need factual evidence, not merely an inference. He said they wanted to interview Sandeson, not investigate him.

Sayer added that if someone misleads the police while providing information they could become a suspect. [ 136 ] Sayer felt that there were four possibilities regarding Samson’s disappearance: 1) Samson left (which Sayer felt was not consistent with the facts as he knew them, in that Samson had not taken important items with him and had not touched his bank accounts); 2) Samson committed suicide (which Sayer felt was not consistent with the facts as he knew them, in that there was no history of depression or mental illness); 3) Samson was kidnapped or murdered; or 4) there was a drug rip-off. [ 137 ] According to Sayer, it was only after reviewing the text messages between 3:00 and 4:00 PM on August 18, 2015, that the police considered Sandeson a suspect.

A police briefing was held at approximately 4:00 PM. The police were aware that “drug transactions sometimes go sideways.” They felt Samson might still be inside Sandeson’s Henry Street apartment. They were concerned his life could be in danger due to a drug rip-off. The police were also concerned that his health could be at risk as he was not taking his liver medication. The police experience was that it could take up to five hours or more to obtain a warrant. They wanted the quickest option to legally go into Sandeson’s apartment to see if Samson was still inside.

Therefore, Sayer said they determined they should enter under exigent circumstances. [ 138 ] Sandeson’s Henry Street apartment was breached. The police did not find Samson. The police did note an empty gun box. [ 139 ] Sayer participated in the interview of Sandeson on August 18, 2015, as he was familiar with the file. He also participated in the interview of Sandeson on August 19, 2015, for about thirty minutes. During Sayer’s time interviewing Sandeson, he had the impression that Sandeson understood what was going on and was satisfied with the legal advice he had received.

He never said he was hungry or thirsty, or that he needed to use the washroom. Sayer was sometimes one foot or less away from him. Sayer touched Sandeson twice gently during the interview after which Sandeson asked Sayer not to touch him anymore. Although his eyes were closed on occasion, Sandeson never appeared to be asleep. [ 140 ] By August 19, 2015, FIS had searched the Henry Street apartment, finding the bullet hole in the windowsill. They were not sure how long it had been there. There was no visible blood.

The police decided to hold back the evidence of the bullet and the bullet hole. [ 141 ] Sayer said Allison mainly conducted Sandeson’s interview on August 19, 2015. Sandeson’s first version of events had three men

attacking him and Samson in his apartment. Part way through that interview, Sayer temporarily replaced him. In his interview of Sandeson on August 18, 2015, Sayer had tried to appeal to Sandeson’s emotions, but on August 19 he tried a more straightforward approach, as Allison was taking the emotional approach. Sandeson was very emotional with Allison, but with Sayer on August 19 he was quiet, and attentive, and was not crying. [ 142 ] During the August 19, 2015, interview, Sayer told Sandeson about some additional evidence that FIS discovered.

Sandeson’s story then changed and he claimed that two people had been hiding in the apartment. The story then changed again and Sandeson said that Samson was shot in the apartment and then his body was removed. At that point the police concluded that Samson was dead and Sandeson’s jeopardy had changed such that he was arrested for murder. Sayer and Boyd were briefly delayed in traveling from the monitoring room to the interview room to stop the interview and re-arrest and re-caution Sandeson due to the change in circumstances.

The interview continued for approximately four minutes after the change in jeopardy but before he was re-arrested. During those four minutes Sandeson provided the police with another version of events (The Crown concedes that the four minutes between the change in jeopardy and Sandeson’s re-arrest are inadmissible due to a violation of Sandeson’s s. 10 Charter rights). [ 143 ] At that point, Allison arrested Sandeson for murder and he was given a chance to call his lawyer. No further statement was taken from him.

Constable Robbie Baird [ 144 ] Constable Robbie Baird attended a briefing at police headquarters at 4:00 PM on August 18, 2015. Members were briefed with a description of a vehicle and were advised that the suspect, William Sandeson, might be located in the Leaman Park area of Dartmouth. [ 145 ] Baird said Constable Pam Green advised via police radio that Sandeson’s motorcycle was located outside his girlfriend’s parent’s house on Leaman Drive.

Baird said he was in plainclothes, wearing a hoodie, jeans and a well-marked police issue vest. [ 146 ] After setting up surveillance in Dartmouth, Baird was advised that the suspect was arrestable for kidnapping. At approximately 8:00 PM on August 18, 2015, he assisted in the arrest of Sandeson for kidnapping. He said that Sandeson was calm upon arrest. Following the arrest, Baird put handcuffs on Sandeson and turned him over to Constable Marc MacMullin and Constable Mirko Markovic. Baird said MacMullin read Sandeson his police caution and Charter rights.

Constable Marc MacMullin [ 147 ] On August 18, 2015, MacMullin was in plain clothes, wearing a visible sidearm, and was working with Markovic, who was dressed similarly. They were tasked with conducting surveillance on Sandeson in Dartmouth. Sometime prior to 8:00 PM he was advised that Sandeson was arrestable for kidnapping. MacMullin was directed via police radio to an address on Leaman Drive to assist in the arrest. Upon his arrival at Leaman Drive, MacMullin saw and heard Baird place Sandeson under arrest for kidnapping. [ 148 ] Baird handed Sandeson over to MacMullin.

MacMullin said that he read Sandeson the police caution and his Charter rights at 8:32 PM. He said that Sandeson appeared to understand what he was read, seemed to be in shock and did not say or do anything upon arrest. [ 149 ] MacMullin and Markovic transported Sandeson to booking at police headquarters, arriving at 8:44 PM. MacMullin took Sandeson to a police interview room at 8:55 PM and had no further involvement in the matter.

Constable Mirko Markovic [ 150 ] At approximately 8:00 PM on August 18, 2015, Constable Mirko Markovic, who was conducting surveillance with MacMullin, received a radio transmission that Sandeson had been observed on Leaman Drive. Markovic and MacMullin were wearing plain clothes and had visible badges and sidearms. By the time they arrived on Leaman Drive, Sandeson was under arrest and with Baird. [ 151 ] Sandeson was placed in handcuffs and MacMullin brought him to the police van. MacMullin read Sandeson his police caution and Charter rights in the police vehicle.

MacMullin told Sandeson he was arrestable for kidnapping. Markovic drove the van to police headquarters while MacMullin rode in the back with Sandeson. He overheard McMullen making small talk with Sandeson about sports and school. [ 152 ] On their arrival at headquarters, Sandeson was taken to booking. Markovic said he appeared to understand everything that was going on around him, and he observed nothing noteworthy about Sandeson’s demeanor.

Constable Jason Shannon [ 153 ] By the time Shannon arrived at Leaman Drive on August 18, 2015, Sandeson had been arrested, and his girlfriend, Sonja Gashus, was arrested as well. Shannon dealt with some of Gashus’ family members on scene, away from Sandeson. [ 154 ] Shannon’s first contact with Sandeson was later, at headquarters, after Sandeson had been arrested. Shannon saw him in the interview room. On video, Shannon read him a form explaining his Charter rights and the police caution.

He explained to Sandeson that he was under arrest for kidnapping, drug trafficking, and misleading the police. [ 155 ] After this, at 9:50 PM, Sandeson was placed in a private room, where he called a lawyer for legal advice. The private call to his lawyer took twenty minutes. Shannon then brought Sandeson back to the interview room. Shannon said he had no conversation with Sandeson other than what is captured on the video. [ 156 ] During Shannon’s contact with him, Sandeson appeared to understand what was transpiring and his demeanor appeared normal.

[ 157 ] The next morning, August 19, 2015, Shannon took Sandeson from the cells to the interview room again. He said Sandeson continued to appear normal and to understand what was happening. Detective Constable Donnie Buell [ 158 ] On August 18, 2015, Buell was assigned as interview co-ordinator in the Samson missing person case.

He tasked officers with conducting interviews and also watched some of the interviews in the monitoring room including: Keddy’s August 18, 2015, interview of Sandeson; interviews of MacKenzie Ruthven and Felicia Butler; Sayer’s August 18, 2015, interview of Sandeson; and Allison and Sayer’s August 19, 2015, interview of Sandeson. [ 159 ] At the end of the August 18, 2015, Sandeson interview, Buell and Sayer escorted Sandeson to the cells for the night. Buell said he tried to build rapport with Sandeson by chatting about track and field and medical school.

He tried to engage him by discussing Samson’s liver condition in a medical fashion. He suggested to Sandeson that “they both know Samson is not coming back” and asked Sandeson “if Samson is alive, where is he?” Buell said that these references were made in the context of Samson’s liver condition and explaining to Sandeson that the longer Sandeson was quiet about Samson’s location, the more chance there was of Samson’s possible mortality. Buell said that following his comments Sandeson was very quiet, and became visibly upset, shaking and crying.

Constable Joseph “Jody” Allison [ 160 ] Allison was asked to assist in the investigation by conducting an interview with Sandeson on August 18, 2015, regarding a kidnapping. At 11:30 PM he was briefed by Boyd and Robinson. He was told that Sandeson was a first-year medical student who had been arrested for drug trafficking and kidnapping. Sayer was interviewing Sandeson while Allison was being briefed. He then went home for the evening. [ 161 ] Allison came back to headquarters at 6:00 AM on August 19, 2015. The booklet of text messages taken from Sandeson’s phone had been left for him.

He was told that FIS had started to process the scene and had found blood, but not enough to indicate that anything major had occurred.

He conducted his own Versadex check regarding Sandeson, which revealed nothing. [ 162 ] At 10:45 AM Allison met with the triangle who advised that a shower curtain and bath mat were missing from Sandeson’s apartment; that Sandeson’s story did not line up with the text messages; that it looked like blood had been wiped off a table; that money with blood on it had been located in a bag; that a video surveillance system covering the hallway outside the apartment and displaying images on a monitor in Sandeson’s bedroom had been located and seized, but no information had yet been retrieved (photos from the surveillance system were provided to Allison part way through the interview); and that blood evidence had been located at the scene, but not enough to indicate mortality. [ 163 ] Allison’s interview with Sandeson was captured on video in its entirety.

Allison took the Hippocratic Oath, Facebook postings from Connor Samson’s Facebook page, and the booklet of text messages into the interview. His stated intention was to determine the truth and to find Samson. During the interview Allison was generally two feet away or less from Sandeson. He noticed that Sandeson had injuries to his knuckles. [ 164 ] Allison said Sandeson became very emotional during the interview. He was crying and tearful, with a runny nose and hyperventilating.

Sandeson told him “I want to talk, but I can’t prove it” and “I want to speak to a lawyer to help me articulate things.” Allison knew Sandeson had already spoken to a lawyer, that he had already received legal advice, and was told by Sandeson that he knew he was breaching his lawyer’s advice by saying anything.

Despite his emotional state, Allison said Sandeson appeared to understand what was going on at all times. [ 165 ] Allison was not told about the holdback evidence, including the bullet and bullet hole found in Sandeson’s apartment, until after Sandeson was charged with murder after the third interview on August 19, 2015. As a result, Allison was not aware that Sandeson’s jeopardy had changed when Sandeson said, late in the interview, that Samson had been shot and his body removed. William Sandeson [ 166 ] Sandeson chose to testify on the voir dir

[…]