Warrantless Searches: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1'',"
No edit summary
 
(20 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderWarrantless}}
[[fr:Perquisitions sans mandat]]{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderWarrantless}}


==Introduction==
==Introduction==
Generally speaking, a valid search should only be done when under judicial authorization where it is feasible to get one.<ref>
Police can be authorized to intrude on a person's right to privacy either through statute or by common law power.
Hunter v Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mgc1 1984 CanLII 33]{{perSCC|Dickson J}} ("where it is feasible to obtain prior authorization, ... such authorization is a precondition for a valid search and seizure ... ")</ref>


Generally speaking, a lawful search can only be done when under judicial authorization where it is feasible to get one.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Hunter v Southam Inc|1mgc1|1984 CanLII 33|, [1984] 2 SCR 145}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}} ("where it is feasible to obtain prior authorization, ... such authorization is a precondition for a valid search and seizure ... ")</ref>
; Burden of Proof
An individual alleging a breach of his or her ''Charter'' rights bears the burden of proving that violation on a balance of probabilities. That being said, if the individual can demonstrate that a police search was conducted without a warrant, that search will be presumed to be unreasonable unless shown to be justified.<ref>
An individual alleging a breach of his or her ''Charter'' rights bears the burden of proving that violation on a balance of probabilities. That being said, if the individual can demonstrate that a police search was conducted without a warrant, that search will be presumed to be unreasonable unless shown to be justified.<ref>
Hunter v Southam Inc.{{supra}}<br>  
{{supra1|Hunter v Southam Inc}}<br>  
''R v Golden'', [2001] 3 SCR 679,  [http://canlii.ca/t/51xm 2001 SCC 83] (CanLII){{perSCC| Iacobucci and Arbour JJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Golden|51xm|2001 SCC 83 (CanLII)|[2001] 3 SCR 679}}{{perSCC| Iacobucci and Arbour JJ}}<br>
''R v Mann'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1hmp1 2004 SCC 52] (CanLII){{perSCC| Iacobucci J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Mann|1hmp1|2004 SCC 52 (CanLII)|2004] 3 SCR 59}}{{perSCC| Iacobucci J}}<br>
''R v Feeney'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr1w 1997 CanLII 342] (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 13, at para 54<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Feeney|1fr1w|1997 CanLII 342 (SCC)|[1997] 2 SCR 13}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}{{atL|1fr1w|54}}<br>
</ref> The Crown then must prove the reasonableness of the search on a balance of probabilities. <ref>see ''R v Caslake'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqww 1998 CanLII 838] (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 51{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}} at para 11</ref>  Reasonableness of a search has both a subjective and objective component.<Ref>''R v Bernshaw'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frmf 1995 CanLII 150] (SCC){{perSCC|Sopinka J}}</ref>
</ref>
 
The Crown then must prove the reasonableness of the search on a balance of probabilities. <ref>
The Police cannot enter into a private dwelling without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances.<ref>Feeney{{supra}} at para 44</ref>
see {{CanLIIRP|Caslake|1fqww|1998 CanLII 838 (SCC)|[1998] 1 SCR 51}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{AtL|1fqww|11}}</ref>   
Reasonableness of a search has both a subjective and objective component.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bernshaw|1frmf|1995 CanLII 150 (SCC)|[1995] 1 SCR 254}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}</ref>


Police can be authorized to violate a person's right to privacy either through statute or by common law power.
; Entry into a Residence
The Police cannot enter into a private dwelling without a warrant, consent of the homeower(s), or exigent circumstances.<ref>
{{supra1|Feeney}}{{atL|1fr1w|44}}</ref>


{{Reflist|2}}
{{Reflist|2}}

Latest revision as of 19:17, 11 August 2024

Introduction

Police can be authorized to intrude on a person's right to privacy either through statute or by common law power.

Generally speaking, a lawful search can only be done when under judicial authorization where it is feasible to get one.[1]

Burden of Proof

An individual alleging a breach of his or her Charter rights bears the burden of proving that violation on a balance of probabilities. That being said, if the individual can demonstrate that a police search was conducted without a warrant, that search will be presumed to be unreasonable unless shown to be justified.[2] The Crown then must prove the reasonableness of the search on a balance of probabilities. [3] Reasonableness of a search has both a subjective and objective component.[4]

Entry into a Residence

The Police cannot enter into a private dwelling without a warrant, consent of the homeower(s), or exigent circumstances.[5]

  1. ↑ Hunter v Southam Inc, 1984 CanLII 33, , [1984] 2 SCR 145, per Dickson J ("where it is feasible to obtain prior authorization, ... such authorization is a precondition for a valid search and seizure ... ")
  2. ↑ Hunter v Southam Inc, supra
    R v Golden, 2001 SCC 83 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 679, per Iacobucci and Arbour JJ
    R v Mann, 2004 SCC 52 (CanLII), 2004] 3 SCR 59, per Iacobucci J
    R v Feeney, 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 13, per Sopinka J, at para 54
  3. ↑ see R v Caslake, 1998 CanLII 838 (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 51, per Lamer CJ, at para 11
  4. ↑ R v Bernshaw, 1995 CanLII 150 (SCC), [1995] 1 SCR 254, per Sopinka J
  5. ↑ Feeney, supra, at para 44

Categories of Searches

There are several types of warrantless searches:

  1. Search by Consent
  2. Search Incident to Investigative Detention
  3. Search Incident to Arrest
  4. Search of Abandoned Property
  5. Search in Plain View
  6. Exigent Circumstances
  7. Statutory Warrantless Search Powers

See Also

Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Warrantless_Searches&oldid=96076"