R. v. Wamboldt
The arrest was unlawful under s.495 because the officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary (identity known, no grounds to believe non‑attendance, opportunity to secure compliance existed); alternatively, even if the arrest were valid, the defendant’s gross intoxication raised reasonable doubt that he voluntarily resisted. Therefore acquittal was required.
- Citation
- 2003 NSPC 11
- Parties
- Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Chad Wamboldt
- Court
- Nova Scotia Provincial Court
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 14 April 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Summary Conviction / Trial Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Not guilty (acquitted)
- Legal Topics
- Resisting Arrest, Arrest Without Warrant (s.495 Criminal Code), Use of Force/pepper Spray, Intoxication and Voluntariness
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Crown
Chad Wamboldt
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Summary Conviction / Trial Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Was the warrantless arrest valid under s.495 of the Criminal Code?
- 2 Did the defendant resist arrest given his gross intoxication?
Ratio Decidendi
The arrest was unlawful under s.495 because the officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary (identity known, no grounds to believe non‑attendance, opportunity to secure compliance existed); alternatively, even if the arrest were valid, the defendant’s gross intoxication raised reasonable doubt that he voluntarily resisted. Therefore acquittal was required.
Court Disposition
Not guilty (acquitted)
Orders
- Defendant acquitted of resisting arrest
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment