In R v Adams 2026 ABKB 33, the Court delivered an important decision about fairness in criminal trials. The case makes one thing clear: if police rely on a person’s alleged criminal past to justify stopping, detaining, and searching them, the person has the right to see the full records behind those claims. If the police say someone is dangerous based on past investigations, the defence is entitled to examine the actual files.
What happened?
Three men were passengers in a vehicle heading to the Calgary Stampede. A specialized police team was watching for “targets” they believed were linked to organized crime. The officers said they recognized Mr. Adams “by observing a corn row hairstyle on the front passenger through a partially open side window” (para 05) and were aware of his alleged criminal history.
The car was stopped, officially for window tint, and within a few minutes, all three men were physically restrained and handcuffed. At that moment, none of them were told the reason for the traffic stop or informed of their right to contact a lawyer.
When police searched the three individuals and their belongings, firearms were located. They argued at the trial that the police had no lawful grounds to detain and search them. They claimed their Charter rights were violated.
What is the fight about?
The police said they had grounds to stop and search the three men based partly on historical police intelligence, including Mr. Adams’ alleged criminal history. Because of that, the defence asked to see the actual documents (the information the police relied on), arguing that it is clearly relevant to the case.
Let’s remember: the justification for the detention and search was based partly on Mr. Adams’ and another individual’s past criminal involvement and intelligence.
The Crown, however, argued that these records did not have to be automatically disclosed. In its view, the records were not directly related to the firearm charges. Instead, the defence would need to make a formal application to obtain them as third-party records, meaning the police would be treated as a separate record holder.
What is the difference between first-party and third-party disclosure?
The Court explained that there are two main types of disclosure.
First-party disclosure is the normal rule. This principle comes from a case called Stinchcombe. It means that if the Crown has relevant information about the case, it must give it to the defence automatically. Also, police must provide the Crown with any information that is “obviously relevant” to the accused’s case.
Third-party disclosure, on the other hand, applies when the records belong to someone outside the prosecution. In that situation, the defence must apply to the court (through what is called an O’Connor application) and show that the records are “likely relevant.”
The Court’s analysis
The police relied heavily on alleged past criminal activity to justify their actions. Some of those allegations did not result in convictions. One officer even misstated Mr. Adams’ criminal record.
If the police say, “We believed he was dangerous because of his past,” then the defence must be allowed to examine that past. Police cannot justify a search based on secret files and then refuse to show those files to the accused. The judge concluded that the records were “obviously relevant” and must be disclosed as first-party disclosure.
Why is this decision important?
The bottom line is simple: police cannot label someone as dangerous without allowing the defence to see the information behind that label. This decision strengthens an essential principle that if the government uses information against you, you have the right to see it. That right is fundamental to making a full answer and defence.
How does this affect minority groups?
R v Adams is not just about firearms or disclosure rules. It is about accountability. When police rely on intelligence, past allegations, or associations to justify stopping and searching someone, especially in proactive policing operations targeting so-called “targets”, there is a real risk that racialized and minority communities will be disproportionately affected.
History has shown that intelligence files and gang labels can sometimes reflect systemic bias as much as they reflect objective danger. If those records remain hidden from scrutiny, courts cannot properly assess whether police action was truly reasonable or whether stereotypes and assumptions played a role.
Contact Edmonton Criminal Defence Lawyer Rory Ziv
If you’ve been charged with a criminal offence in Edmonton or anywhere in Alberta, the stakes are high. A criminal conviction can affect your employment, travel, immigration status, and personal relationships. You need experienced legal representation that understands the complexities of criminal law and how to build a strong defence.
Rory Ziv is an Edmonton criminal defence lawyer with a proven track record of successfully defending clients against assault charges and other criminal allegations.
Don’t face criminal charges alone. Contact Rory Ziv today for a confidential consultation. Early legal advice can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case. Let an experienced Edmonton criminal defence lawyer fight for your rights and your future.