Source: https://robichaudlaw.ca/youre-under-arrest-can-you-google-a-lawyer/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:57:31+00:00

Document:
You're Under Arrest: Can You Google a Lawyer?
You’re Under Arrest: Can You Google a Lawyer?
Imagine this – through some series of poor decisions or just a momentary lapse in your otherwise good judgement you’re suddenly in the wrong place in the wrong time. You know you have a right to silence under section 7 of the Charter, but you also know you’re in over your head and need experienced legal counsel.
The arresting officer turns around in his seat and asks – “do you have a lawyer you wish to call?”. “Do I have a lawyer?” You think this question over with some level of surprise. “I’m not a mobster or a high-powered Bond villain. I don’t have one on speed dial let alone a number memorized” you muse to yourself. Then you think of that catchy commercial and that lawyer you saw on TV. For a moment you know exactly who to call, but as soon as you open your mouth you immediately close it as you remember that Alan Shore, Saul Goodman, Harvey Specter, Lionel Hutz, and Bob Loblaw are all fictional characters.
How do you find a lawyer then? You’ve never been in a police station before, you’ve never even been pulled over for speeding – you have no idea who to call. Why not answer it the way you answer all your other questions, both mundane and important? Can you just Google a lawyer?
Well, first – do you have the right to a lawyer?
What is 10(b) and the Right to Counsel?
The Supreme Court R. v. Willier describes the circumstances that trigger s. 10(b) and why it’s so important.
Informational: The right to be informed of that right.
Returning to R. v. Willier , the Supreme Court leans on an older SCC case, R. v. Bartle, and outlines three duties imposed on police who make an arrest or effect a detention by 10(b). The SCC, in R. v. Suberu, confirms that the first duty is informational.
To inform the detainee of his or her right to retain and instruct counsel without delay and of the existence and availability of legal aid and duty counsel.
The second and third duties are implementional. What is common to all three duties is that they are triggered immediately upon arrest or detention since the underlying purpose that animates s. 10(b) is engaged once an arrest or detention has taken place.
To refrain from eliciting evidence from the detainee until he or she has had that reasonable opportunity (again, except in cases of urgency or danger).
From the moment an individual is detained, s. 10(b) is engaged and, as the words of the provision dictate, the police have the obligation to inform the detainee of his or her right to counsel “without delay”.
How Does 10(b) Guarantee Me a Lawyer?
So, you have a 10(b) right under the Charter. The arresting officer puts you in a small room with a phone receiver and some weathered paper taped to the wall that bears a 1-800 number and the words “Duty Counsel” above it. You sit down in the metal folding chair and the officer asks you what number you want him to call.
Is that a Reasonable Opportunity?
No. This isn’t a “reasonable opportunity to exercise the right” to counsel set out in s. 10(b) of the Charter.
It would be a meaningless right if the police were merely required to provide the informational component of that right without a further requirement to take any steps to assist a person they have detained to exercise that right. The police usually control access to the phone, phonebooks and other means of contact in the station. This control brings with it an obligation to make sure that an accused who has made a request to speak to counsel of choice will be provided with the means to do so.
If you want to speak with particular counsel you must be advised of phonebooks and other resources that may be available at the police station to assist them in obtaining the necessary phone numbers. Further, they must be given a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel of choice before resort is made to duty counsel.
Do the Police Have to Google a Lawyer for You?
It depends. In Alberta (R. v. McKay), the court observed on the ubiquity of the internet and the dependence of persons born after 1980 on it as their primary source of information, not to mention the efficacy of internet information searches for legal counsel. The Court also noted that the police routinely access the internet to investigate crime and gather information, so the same opportunities should be afforded to accused persons. Thus, the Court found that in the year 2013 police providing access to the internet is part of a detainee’s reasonable opportunity to contact legal counsel. Furthermore, it held that the police failed to meet its onus of proof with respect to the first implementational duty on the part of the police and that the accused was not given a reasonable opportunity to exercise his right to access a lawyer.
R v. Alaia, a 2017 Alberta case, adds that each case is fact specific, but echoes McKay word for word in concluding that “The police might be required to provide Internet access in these circumstances in order to meet their implementational duty under section 10(b) of the Charter.
In Ontario, similar cases have weighed in on this issue, but with less definitive results. In R. v. Panigas, a 2014 case, the Court found s. 10(b) breach when the police couldn’t find his lawyer online and didn’t let him search himself. However, the Court was also shy in presuming to dictate operational protocols for the police and explicitly stated that a contextual approach is key.
In 2016, R. v. Park, the Court decided that while access to the internet was a viable means for police to meet their implementational duty, there was no positive duty.
This third option can be resolved by permitting the detainee access to a conventional lawyer’s directory or conducting an internet search for a lawyer’s name. By failing to permit the third option in this case, the police officer failed to fulfill the informational requirement imposed on her under section 10(b) and therefore, deprived the detainee of her counsel of choice.
The short answer, is the police have to meet their implementational duty to help you contact duty counsel, a specific lawyer, or any lawyer. However, this duty can be met with or without the internet. While the internet will almost surely meet this 10(b) it is not (yet) a requirement as this duty can be met in other ways.
Perhaps the time has come to challenge this practice and ensure that all Canadians have a true right to select their counsel of choice upon arrest, by whatever reasonable means they prefer.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.