Ron Chhinzer's banner
Ron Chhinzer's profile picture

Ron Chhinzer

@RealRonChhinzer18,709 subscribers

Tech Exec | Former 20+ Year Police Veteran | 25+ Years of Volunteer Work | Conservative | Common Sense

Shorts

A former Bell technician was convicted after exposing himself to a female customer for over 20 minutes during a home internet installation in Ontario. His lawyer argued for leniency, claiming a tough sentence could affect his immigration status. But the judge didn’t back down, stating that Singh's actions were too serious and leniency wasn’t in the public interest. This is one of the few cases where the justice system got it right Here's a clip from the latest episode of “The Crime Report with Ron Chhinzer” only on Juno News. Visit to subscribe and save 20% off of your subscription.

A former Bell technician was convicted after exposing himself to a female customer for over 20 minutes during a home internet installation in Ontario. His lawyer argued for leniency, claiming a tough sentence could affect his immigration status. But the judge didn’t back down, stating that Singh's actions were too serious and leniency wasn’t in the public interest. This is one of the few cases where the justice system got it right Here's a clip from the latest episode of “The Crime Report with Ron Chhinzer” only on Juno News. Visit to subscribe and save 20% off of your subscription.

60,014 görüntüleme

Videos

RealRonChhinzer's profile picture

Put your elbows down.

Ron Chhinzer

35,885 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

RealRonChhinzer's profile picture

One of the issues the judge focused on in this case was that the officer took the accused’s cell phone after placing him under arrest. The judge viewed that as part of an unlawful detention - even though the phone wasn’t searched, accessed, or used as evidence. It was simply held by the officer, as is routine in police custody. But let’s break that down in real-world terms: when someone is arrested and placed in the back of a police cruiser, their personal belongings (phones, wallets, keys, etc.) are always temporarily taken away. This isn’t unusual. It’s done for safety and control. Officers need to prevent the person in custody from using their phone to coordinate interference, delete evidence, or try to flee. They also need to ensure nothing in their possession could be used to hurt themselves or someone else. This is standard procedure during an arrest, especially when someone is handcuffed and in the back of a locked cruiser. Yet despite this, the judge treated the removal of the phone as a sign the officer violated the accused’s Charter rights. The court argued that since there was no lawful authority under the Highway Traffic Act to take the phone, it contributed to the detention being considered arbitrary and unreasonable, even though the phone was never actually searched. What makes this even more confusing is that Justice Renu Mandhane herself spoke publicly in 2016 about this exact issue - about the difference between seizing a phone during arrest and searching it without a warrant. She acknowledged back then that seizing a phone is one thing, but it’s the searching of it that raises serious privacy concerns under the Charter. That distinction was clear in her public comments, but now, from the bench, she ruled that even the simple act of seizing the phone, without any search, was problematic. This case shows the growing disconnect between what’s legally expected in court and what officers are trained to do in the field. Even when they follow routine, safety-based procedures, they’re being second-guessed by the courts based not on what they did wrong, but how it might be perceived. If you want to read the full court ruling for yourself, it’s available on CanLII here:

Ron Chhinzer

27,356 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce