SCENARIO QUESTIONS: RULES OF EVIDENCE CANADIAN LAW

1. Patrick MacNamara teaches at a local high school and coaches the school hockey team. He suspects that certain members of his team are smoking marijuana. Patrick calls them into his office individually for a "friendly chat." All of the players initially deny drug use, but Patrick assures them that it is in their best interests to "come clean." He further states that if he finds out that any of his players lied to him, he will kick them off the team. The team captain readily admits to using drugs as well as providing drugs to some of his teammates. Patrick goes to the police with this information, and the player is charged with both possession and trafficking offences. Is the statement made by the player a confession? Is it admissible? Why?

2. The police go door to door after a six-year-old girl is brutally assaulted and murdered. They ask all males who live within two blocks of the girl's home for samples of their DNA. Most comply, but several refuse. The police subsequently follow those who refused, hoping to find some evidence linking them to the deceased. The police remove a pop can from the trash after it is discarded by one of the suspects and recover a sample of his DNA. The police match the suspect's DNA with samples found on the body of the girl. Is the evidence admissible? Why or why not? Do you think that the police have a right to ask all adult males in a certain geographical area to provide samples of their DNA?

3. A police officer investigates a minor traffic accident and asks both drivers to provide the usual documentation and their version of events. One complies but the other refuses to provide any information, including his driver's licence and evidence of insurance, claiming a "right to silence." Do you think that the second driver was justified in his actions? Why or why not?

4. Ravi Singh is a former police officer. As a cop, he was as tough as they come. He is being questioned about $5 million in drug money that has disappeared from the police station. The investigating officers tell Ravi that they have a video of him removing the money. No such video exists. They also tell him that they are sick of bad cops and will put him in a holding cell with other criminals unless he talks. Police officers are known to have short lifespans when placed in the general prison population. Ravi, however, has no fear of being put in a holding cell and relishes the opportunity to knock a few heads. However, he decides that there is ample evidence to convict him based on the video, so he admits to taking the money. Is Ravi's statement a confession? Is it admissible? Why or why not?