Seizure of Property: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
m Text replacement - "}} {{" to "}}{{"
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:


For any warrantless seizure of property, the burden is upon the Crown to prove that it did not violate s. 8 of the Charter. To put the burden on the accused "ignores the reality that the Crown is in the best position to know how and why the seizure took place"<ref>
For any warrantless seizure of property, the burden is upon the Crown to prove that it did not violate s. 8 of the Charter. To put the burden on the accused "ignores the reality that the Crown is in the best position to know how and why the seizure took place"<ref>
''R v Hass'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1l84h 2005 CanLII 26440] (ON CA){{perONCA|Goudge JA}}{{at|37}}
''R v Hass'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1l84h 2005 CanLII 26440] (ON CA){{perONCA|Goudge JA}}{{atL|1l84h|37}}
</ref>
</ref>



Revision as of 21:55, 21 August 2019

Introduction

Property can be seized and then detain by police under the Code in several ways.

Detention can occur as:

For any warrantless seizure of property, the burden is upon the Crown to prove that it did not violate s. 8 of the Charter. To put the burden on the accused "ignores the reality that the Crown is in the best position to know how and why the seizure took place"[1]

Where the police do not seize property and merely make observations, they may still give evidence regarding the items and are not violating the "best evidence rule".[2]

  1. R v Hass, 2005 CanLII 26440 (ON CA), per Goudge JA, at para 37
  2. R v Pham, 1999 BCCA 571 (CanLII), per Braidwood JA

Topics

General Seizure Powers

Detention, Access, Disposal of Things Seized Under Section 489 or 487.11

Other Seizure and Detention Powers

See Also