By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed

I. Executive Summary
It is a common occurrence for an arrested person to invoke the right to counsel by asking to consult with a lawyer then change his mind and waive the right before consulting with a lawyer. When this happens, the police have a mandatory obligation to read the "Prosper Warning" to the arrested person before interrogating him. Since the inception of the "Prosper Warning" in 1994, a string of case law derivatives have emerged including two recent decisions by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R. v. Basko (2007)[1] and R. v. Weeseekase (2007)[2].

Both cases include:

1. important points-of-reference for frontline police officers, and
2. significant case law review for research purposes.

Prosper Warning Part 1 explains the Basko point-of-reference circumstances and its derivative cases. Part 2 will explain the Weeseekase point-of-reference and its derivative cases including how Basko is applied.