Case Law Flashcards
Hunter vs Southam - Standard in the watershed case
Created the Hunter standard
Main points to take away
Search without warrant is considered unreasonable
- Onus on state to prove
Must be issued before search
Must be granted by someone authorized and capacbe of acting judicially
Evidence presented to get warrant must be sworn in
Must have reasonable and probable grounds to belive that the evidence will be present at search site
- R v Polashek
Person was not informed of rights to council without delay 13 min delay
Further evidence found in car
Person made inculpatory statement in response to evidence having been found
If the person had had their rights read to them they probs would have made different statements
The court cant determine what would have happened if the incupulcitory statement had been excluded
Defence should be different
- R v Caslake
Person arrested for possession of narcotics
Several hours later inventory search of car was conducted
Was the search illegal?
This search was justified based on search incident to arrest
No time limit on search incident to arrest
- R v Fearon
Cellphone search incident to arrest
Cell phone search allowed
Certian requirements
Warrantless phone search allowed
Placing strictlimitations
Arrest must be lawfully
Search must truly be incidental and not the objective of the arrest
Nature and extent of the search
Police must record in detail about the search
- R v Kokesch
Officers searched the outside of a home and observed things that suggested that the house was being used to grow marijuana. In order to see this the initial search was considered unjustified.
The police Tresspassed with minimal uncorroborated evidence
Violation was very serioious and not mitigated by good faith nature.
Evidence gained from tresspassing was used to create the warrant
All following evidence was thrown out under 24 (2)
Cannot attend a residence solely to gain evidence
Violation of section 8 Right to privacy
- R v Godoy
Godoy provides auth for police to ender dwelling home in the case of a dropped 911 call to determine safety of those inside
Dropped call formed RG to belive that caller is in imminent danger
Must search whole house
Can force way inside
- R v Feeney
This case defines when officers are allowed to ender a dwelling home or castle
Must have a feeny endorsed warrant to ender a dwelling home
Bench warrant isn’t enough
Exceptions
1. In hot pursuit
2. Preservation of life (Exegent circumstances)
3. Preservation of evidence of IND offences (Exegent circumstances
4. Have informed Consent
- R v Simpson – Test in relation to detaining for investigative purposes
Allowed to detain for investigative purposes if reasonable suspicion individual is criminally involved in activity
Must be based on specific facts
Must be reasonable cause for suspicion when viewed objectively
Basis for this justification is called articularable cause
- R v Mann
R v Mann is investigative detention
Spotted man who matched suspect description
Gave man a pat down search (Legal for search of weapons officer safety)
Felt something soft in pocket
Pulled it out and it was weed.
Investigative detention allows for search for weapons for officer safety
Not search for weapons
Search was unlawfully
Violated his section 8 rights under the charter
Because of this under section 24(2) the evidence was removed and the charges were dropped
Man clarifies investigative detention and Articularable Cause
- R v Jackson
*Suspects only ones seen in the area
* Gun Shots Rang out- Police returned to area
* Went to check male parties out
* When Police attempt to stop and identify the
male parties they run off
* One male escaped- other was apprehended
* While apprehending male a handgun falls out
By running away the individuals provided reasonable suspicion
All following this was justified
Flight as well as area and reputation and the fact that police identified themselves
Must be able to articulate
- R v Bercier
informant Case Drug Deal About to happen
Information is confirmed and Police felt
they had grounds to stop individual
Police attended – told Bercier they had
information that he was involved in a drug
transaction
Bercier stepped back and officer took
control of suspect
Handcuffed and searched for weapons
On search located baggie containing
Marihuana
Keep in mind search was a pat down this was not an arrest at this point just investigative detention based on prior evidence and the fact that he began to pull away
The pat down found more drugs. Maybe clarify
- R v Chaison
Investigative Detention
2 occupants- Parked in dark area of
parking lot closed gas station
Vehicles lights – Out but vehicle was
running
Occupants don’t see officer right away
when they do- the driver throws something
to the floor
Occupants are ordered out of veh
Located in plain view is bag containing marihuana
and small piece of that drug on the seat
Driver / Passenger Arrested
Further search in plain view 2 scales
Under drivers seat more marihuana and in trunk
approx 1 Kilo of Marihuana
20 min delay on Rights-then taken to station
Further search more drug items located on
Chaisson
he SCC eventually dismisses the charges citing Rights to Counsel delay and critical of the way that the officer arbitrarily ordered the suspects out of the vehicle without justification.
R vs Chaisson allows police officers to use their judgment with the time of day and the location to form reasonable grounds to detain a person suspected of engaging in a criminal act.
- R v Grant
Officers observe black man fidgeting
They go talk to him
Block the way he was walking
Man eventually admits to possessing marijhuana and a handgun
Officers arbitrarily detained him
Violation was not sufficient to deem activation of 24(2)
- R v Macdonald
Police speak with Mcdonald
He wont show what he has in his had
Police push open door
See gun and arrest Mcdonald
Search in violation of Section 8
Justified
Child Youth Act
Child in need - Exegent
Child leaves care of custody -
child leaves open care detention
child is under 12 and has committed an offence of a person over 20
