SUMMARY – Roadside traffic stop leads to guns and drug trafficking charges
RESULT – Win
DEFENCE LAWYER – Sean Fagan
CHARGES: Possession for the purpose of trafficking
The Calgary Police Service (“CPS”) conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle occupied by several young, middle eastern men. The officers claimed to have detected the smell of fresh cannabis, and as a consequence, ordered the occupants to get out of the vehicle. The officers searched the car and found a suspected firearm and cocaine in an amount that was consistent with trafficking. All of the occupants of the vehicle were charged with numerous weapons and firearm offences. Sometimes investigations of this nature are commenced through racial profiling. This isn’t always the case, but it is just one of a multitude of potential Charter infringing actions that a lawyer needs to be aware of.
X.X., a man without a criminal record, understood the importance of avoiding a criminal conviction. A record for any drug offence, especially a drug trafficking offence, will create a serious roadblock to travelling to the United States and adversely impact future employment prospects. Consequently, X.X. retained the legal services of Sean Fagan. Sean Fagan is highly experienced in successfully defending drug and gun prosecutions.
Sean Fagan successfully secured the complete withdrawal of all charges against X.X., saving him the cost and risk associated with trial proceedings. It is not often that drug trafficking charges can be resolved without the entry of a criminal conviction and a lengthy period of incarceration. If a drug trafficking matter is resolved, it is of great importance for the resolution to not impact the co-accused (the other people charged with the same offences).
In this case, Sean Fagan successfully secured the withdrawal of all charges against X.X. without any collateral damage to the co-accused. In fact, the outcome for X.X. assisted his co-accused.
Sean Fagan has assisted many people charged jointly in drug/weapons prosecutions. Although Sean Fagan owes a duty to his client and not to the co-accused, he is abundantly aware of the complex relationships that can be present between co-accused and the need to help his client without doing damage to the co-accused.