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)
Property search-
Home
(Knocking Searches)
R. v. Johnson
1994 CanLII 2108
Hinkson, J.A.;
Lambert and Ryan
JJ.A. (con).
*Final Level
Identity/Search of
Person (Breathalyser
Analysis)
R. v. Concepcion
[1994] 24 W.C.B. (2d)
543
Finch J.A.; Wood and
Donald JJ.A. (con) .
*Final Level
Property - Home
(warrantless search)
R. v. Copan
[1994] B.C.J. No. 188
Hollinrake J.A.;
Hutcheon and Cummin
JJ.A. (con).
* Final Level
Property - vehicle
both occupants.
- The accused was suspected
of drunk driving while still in
her driveway and she refused
to give a breath sample.
- She argued that police
violated her reasonable
expectation of privacy
because they entered onto her
property without her
permission or a warrant.
- Police obtained a search
warrant based on information
that "victims" of a robbery
had identified the accused,
while in fact only one victim
had done so.
- While arresting the accused,
who was not clothed at the
time, the police followed him
to his bedroom so that he
could get dressed before
taking him to the station.
- The accused was charged
with armed robbery and
arson.
- He was found with marked
money on him, which was
later used to convict him.
- The money was placed in an
envelope and the accused
argued he had reasonable
expectation of privacy in the
- Charter, s. 8;
- Motor Vehicle Act, s.
77(1).
- Charter, ss. 8, 24 (2);
- Criminal Code, ss. 344.
- (1) Did the accused have a reasonable
expectation of privacy with regard to giving a
breath sample and did the police violate s. 8?
• NO
- (1) Did the mistake in the application for a
search warrant render the search in violation
of s. 8 of the Charter?
• NO
- (2) Did following the accused into his
bedroom violate s. 8 of the Charter?
• NO
- (3) Should the evidence be excluded?
• NO
- Charter, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did the accused have a reasonable
expectation of privacy with respect to the
envelope with the marked bills?
• NO
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
- The exclusion of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into
disrepute.
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries of a perimeter search of home).
- Brief ref. to Plant.
- (1) Having given police her vehicle registration, which included her address, the
accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy and it was not incumbent on the
police to resort to alternative means of investigation.
- The police were acting pursuant to s.77(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act R.S.B.C. 1979
c.288 in entering the property (believing that the vehicle was involved or could be
involved in an accident) and therefore had legal authorization to be on her property.
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries of a perimeter search of residence).
- (1) The search warrant was obtained in good faith.
- Permitting an arrested person to be comfortably and appropriately clothed before
taking him to the station was part of the arresting process.
- The officer was fully justified in accompanying the accused to his bedroom for that
purpose and the bedroom was, in a real and practical sense, part of the immediate
surroundings.
- The searches were therefore well within the limits of valid searches incidental to
arrest.
- The fairness of the trial was not affected and the evidence should therefore be
admitted, even if it had been necessary to consider the effect of s. 24(2).
- (2) There was no unfairness or error in the manner in which the trial judge
summarized and reviewed portions of the evidence.
- (1) The police may look closely at property seized upon a person’s arrest.
-People have a lower reasonable expectation of privacy after arrest and detention
(discussed in North and Olsen).
- The bills were taken from accused during a legitimate search upon his arrest.
- The trial judge correctly concluded that the accused had no control over these
articles and therefore could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- (2) Even if s. 8 had been technically breached, the evidence should properly have
been admitted under s. 24(2).
- The broader public interest mitigates in favour of allowing this evidence. To do
38