Skip to content

Burnaby robbery convictions quashed because of police misconduct

A man convicted of two 2017 armed robberies is getting a new trial because police officers came into his bedroom without a warrant to arrest him
law court
Liam Reilly was 19 when he was arrested in his bedroom for two armed robberies in Burnaby in November 2017.
A man serving time for two armed robberies in Burnaby in 2017 will get a new trial because of police misconduct during his arrest.

Liam Reilly was convicted in 2019 on two counts each of robbery, using an imitation firearm to commit an offence and disguising his face to commit an offence in relation to two robberies in Burnaby in November 2017 – one at an Edmonds-area e-cigarette store called Boss Vapes, and the other at the Deer Lake Market at Burris Street and Walker Avenue, according to courts documents.

Reilly’s lawyer applied to have some of the evidence against his client thrown out, alleging police had violated his Charter rights by entering his home without a warrant before arresting him.

The arrest

Another man arrested in Langley in relation to the Boss Vapes robbery had identified Reilly in 2017 as one of his accomplices – and told them where Reilly lived.

Reilly, then 19 years old, was already under a court order at the time compelling him to present himself at his door to officers checking to make sure he was abiding by a 7 p.m.-to-6 a.m. curfew, so police planned to make him present himself and arrest him at his door.

On Nov. 17, 2017 shortly after 8 p.m., Burnaby RCMP Const. Bryce Sinclair and Metro Vancouver Transit Police Const. Kreshnik Adzijaj knocked on a sliding glass door at the back of Reilly’s home and told him to open up for the police.

They got no answer but heard music playing and a dog barking inside.

Then, without consulting Adzijaj or any senior officer, Sinclair tried the sliding glass door, found it unlocked and went inside, according to court documents.

He went directly to a door he believed accessed Reilly’s suite and knocked on it, saying "Police."

When Reilly opened the door, Sinclair asked him for identification, but, before he could comply, the six-foot-four, 235-pound Mountie “kind of wrapped him up” to prevent Reilly from “reaching for any guns or weapons,” according to statements by Sinclair quoted in a court ruling.

After the arrest, police conducted a brief “clearing search” of the residence, with the “sole intention” of seeing whether there was anyone else in the residence that might have access to firearms, Adzijaj told the court.

During that search, however, one officer spotted a black skeleton mask, of a kind witnesses had reported one of the robbers wearing. Witnesses said the man had brandished a silver handgun and pointed it at one Boss Vapes cashier’s face.

Police returned with a search warrant the next day and seized the mask and other evidence linking Reilly to the robberies.

Judge erred

B.C. Provincial Court Judge Gregory Rideout ruled in December 2018 that Reilly’s Charter rights had been violated by the police, but found there had been cause enough for the search warrant without relying on what police spotted in their brief, warrantless “clearing search.”

He also ruled the unwarranted police intrusion into Reilly’s home was “significant and unjustified,” but not “profoundly intrusive to the extent of establishing that the state conduct would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”

B.C. Court of Appeals Justice Susan Griffin saw it differently.

“I respectfully disagree,” she wrote in a Dec. 17, 2020 ruling. “The appellant was tackled in his own home in the privacy of his bedroom by a large police officer who was immediately joined by another officer. Additional officers followed shortly thereafter. The impact on the appellant’s Charter-protected rights is connected to the seriousness of the breaches because they were carried out in an area where the expectation of privacy is very high.”

In a 2-1 ruling, the three-person court found Rideout had failed to conduct an overall assessment of whether, given the police officers’ conduct, the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute by allowing the evidence.

The appeals court concluded it would.

“The police misconduct was wilful and so serious that it is necessary to exclude the evidence obtained in order to disassociate the justice system from the police misconduct and preserve the reputation of the administration of justice,” Griffin wrote.

The court ruled to exclude the evidence, quash Reilly’s convictions and order a new trial.

Follow Cornelia Naylor on Twitter @CorNaylor
Email [email protected]