Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...

Case Name (Court)
(Judge)
Location/Method of Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings
- (1) whether the search violates s. 8 of theCCharter? - Y/N
- (2) whether to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N
Reasoning
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)
production order. One factor to take into account is the nature and extent of a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the record.
- In this case the evidence did not disclose that the records would likely be relevant,
therefore the analysis did not proceed to the second step.
R. v. Truong
2002 BCCA 315
Donald J.A.; Prowse
and Newbury JJ.A.
(con)
* Final Level
Identity/search of
person - personal
property (luggage)
- Marijuana was found when
the accused’s luggage was
removed from a conveyor
belt in a secure baggage area
by police.
- The police seized Truong's
bag, moving it a few feet, and
allowed a police dog to sniff
the bag for controlled
substances.
- Charter, ss. 8, 10(b),
24(2).
- (1) Did the removal of the bag constitute an
unreasonable seizure and violate the accused
s. 8 rights?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• NO
- (1) The police took control of Truong's bag away from the airline baggage
handlers.
• The police acted on suspicion and had no lawful authority to seize Truong's bag
by removing it from the conveyor and taking it out of the control of the airline.
• Truong had a reasonable expectation of privacy that his bag would not be
handled by anyone other than airline and security personnel.
• Although the police should not be permitted to carry out such seizures arbitrarily,
in this case the police had cause to seize the bag. Moving the bag to facilitate a
sniff search is a justifiable intrusion under the circumstances.
- (2) The breach was so minor that it should not result in the exclusion of the
evidence obtained
• Although the investigatory purpose of the seizure can be considered, the legality
of the sniff search and the opening of the bag are not questioned.
• Therefore, the moving a bag a few feet to enable a police dog to sniff it stands at
the very low end of seriousness.
• The evidence at trial was that the dog in this case was sniffing bags on the carts
before they were taken away to the aircraft.
• The location of the bag when it was sniffed and how it got there were
unimportant in the opinion of the court.
R. v. Parchment
2002 BCCA 252
Braidwood J.A.;
Prowse and Newbury
JJ.A. (con) .
* Final Level
Property - vehicle
R. v. Ku
[2002] B.C.J. No.
2316
- The accused was pulled
over by police for impaired
driving
- He was found to have
possession of drugs.
- A 14-year-old passenger in
the car also had possession of
drugs which were hidden in
her clothes.
- Upon his conviction on
several counts of assault, the
accused was told by the trial
- Charter, s. 8;
- Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, s. 5(2).
- Charter, ss. 1, 7, 8, 11(d),
11(i), 24(1);
- Criminal Code, ss.
- (1) Did the accused have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the drugs that were
hidden in the clothing of a 14-year-old
passenger in his car?
• NO
- (1) Did ordering the blood sample violate s.
8?
- Ref. to Edwards (totality of circumstances).
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8).
- Ref. to Kokesch (police must act in good faith).
- (1) The girl holding the drugs was a minor – it would violate human dignity if the
accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her and her possessions.
• The accused had already been removed at the time of the 14-year-old’s search,
and both possession and control of the drugs had been surrendered to the
girl The accused had no standing to challenge the search of the girl.
- Ref. to Edwards (totality of circumstances test).
- (1) As a convicted offender, Ku had a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy
and the search warrant standard did not apply to either fingerprinting or blood
samples.
28