Warrantless Searches: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:
R v Mann, [http://canlii.ca/t/1hmp1 2004 SCC 52] (CanLII){{perSCC| Iacobucci J}}<br>
R v Mann, [http://canlii.ca/t/1hmp1 2004 SCC 52] (CanLII){{perSCC| Iacobucci J}}<br>
R v Feeney, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr1w 1997 CanLII 342] (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 13, at para 54<br>
R v Feeney, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr1w 1997 CanLII 342] (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 13, at para 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 [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqww 1998 CanLII 838]</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>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>


The Police cannot enter into a private dwelling without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances.<ref>Feeney{{supra}} at para 44</ref>
The Police cannot enter into a private dwelling without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances.<ref>Feeney{{supra}} at para 44</ref>

Revision as of 00:03, 29 November 2018

Introduction

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

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]

The Police cannot enter into a private dwelling without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances.[5]

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

  1. Hunter v Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145, 1984 CanLII 33, 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] 3 SCR 679, 2001 SCC 83 (CanLII), per Iacobucci and Arbour JJ
    R v Mann, 2004 SCC 52 (CanLII), per Iacobucci J
    R v Feeney, 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 13, 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), 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