Inventory Searches: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Text replacement - "\'\'R v ([a-zA-Z]+)\'\', \[http\:\/\/canlii\.ca\/t\/([a-zA-Z0-9_]+) ([1-2][0-9]{3} [BASMOQNP][CBKNCSL][A-Z]+ [0-9]+\] \(CanLII\))\{" to "{{CanLIIR|$1|$2|$3 (CanLII)}}{" |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
This also applies where a vehicle is being seized due to being parked in an unsafe location.<ref> | This also applies where a vehicle is being seized due to being parked in an unsafe location.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIR|Russell|h07hj|2017 BCPC 60] (CanLII) (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Koturbash J}} - re s. 188 of BC Motor Vehicle Act<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Rationale | ; Rationale | ||
The rationale for the power to do an inventory does not flow from the nature of the investigation but rather is based on the interests of:<ref> | The rationale for the power to do an inventory does not flow from the nature of the investigation but rather is based on the interests of:<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIR|Cooper|gt566|2016 BCPC 259] (CanLII) (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Cutler J}}{{atL|gt566|16}}<br> | |||
''R v Wint'', (2009) [http://canlii.ca/t/225zz 2009 ONCA 52] (CanLII), 93 O.R. 514 (Ont.C.A.){{TheCourt}}<br> | ''R v Wint'', (2009) [http://canlii.ca/t/225zz 2009 ONCA 52] (CanLII), 93 O.R. 514 (Ont.C.A.){{TheCourt}}<br> | ||
''R v Nicolosi'' (1998) [http://canlii.ca/t/6h03 1998 CanLII 2006] (ON CA), 127 CCC (3d) 176 (Ont.C.A.){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}<br> | ''R v Nicolosi'' (1998) [http://canlii.ca/t/6h03 1998 CanLII 2006] (ON CA), 127 CCC (3d) 176 (Ont.C.A.){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}<br> | ||
{{CanLIIR|Ellis|fwm5b|2013 ONSC 1494] (CanLII) (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Cambpell J}}<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
* person who owns the property and wishes the police to safeguard the property while it is in police custody; | * person who owns the property and wishes the police to safeguard the property while it is in police custody; | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
; Towing Vehicle | ; Towing Vehicle | ||
A decision on the part of police to have a vehicle towed does not necessarily always justify an inventory search.<ref> | A decision on the part of police to have a vehicle towed does not necessarily always justify an inventory search.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIR|Harflett|gp6lb|2016 ONCA 248] (CanLII) (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Lauwers JA}}<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The police should turn their mind to other options besides impounding the vehicle.<ref> | The police should turn their mind to other options besides impounding the vehicle.<ref> | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
Inventory searches do not extent to situations where an officer is assisting a sheriff's officer in executing an eviction order, such that bags are opened for examination.<ref> | Inventory searches do not extent to situations where an officer is assisting a sheriff's officer in executing an eviction order, such that bags are opened for examination.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIR|Stevens|fm7rk|2011 ONCA 504] (CanLII) (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Armstrong JA}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Use of Evidence Discovered on Inventory Search | ; Use of Evidence Discovered on Inventory Search | ||
Where police are entitled to inventory the contents of a vehicle when impounded, the Crown may not be permitted to tender the fruits of the inventory search as it would not be "authorized by law".<ref> | Where police are entitled to inventory the contents of a vehicle when impounded, the Crown may not be permitted to tender the fruits of the inventory search as it would not be "authorized by law".<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIR|Ahmed|j0sp0|2019 SKCA 47] (CanLII) (CanLII)}}{{perSKCA|Barrington-Foote JA}}{{atL|j0sp0|18}}("Mr. Ahmed had possession of the vehicle with the permission of the owner. As such, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle: ...")<br> | |||
{{CanLIIR|Nolet|2b8jp|2010 SCC 24] (CanLII) (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Binnie J}}{{atL|2b8jp|53}}{{PCite|[2010] 1 SCR 851}}<br> | |||
''R v Caslake'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqww 1998 CanLII 838] (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 51{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atL|1fqww|30}}<br> | ''R v Caslake'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqww 1998 CanLII 838] (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 51{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atL|1fqww|30}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 19:29, 27 January 2021
General Principles
Certain provincial vehicle Acts permit an officer to conduct an inventory search of a vehicle that is being impounded.[1] This also applies where a vehicle is being seized due to being parked in an unsafe location.[2]
- Rationale
The rationale for the power to do an inventory does not flow from the nature of the investigation but rather is based on the interests of:[3]
- person who owns the property and wishes the police to safeguard the property while it is in police custody;
- public safety who are concerned contraband being held by police or in authorized storage facilities;
- police desire to protect against civil liability for loss or damage to property found in the vehicle.
- Towing Vehicle
A decision on the part of police to have a vehicle towed does not necessarily always justify an inventory search.[4] The police should turn their mind to other options besides impounding the vehicle.[5]
- Contents of Bags
The power to conduct inventory searches of vehicles may also permit the opening and examining of the contents of bags found within the vehicle.[6]
Inventory searches do not extent to situations where an officer is assisting a sheriff's officer in executing an eviction order, such that bags are opened for examination.[7]
- Use of Evidence Discovered on Inventory Search
Where police are entitled to inventory the contents of a vehicle when impounded, the Crown may not be permitted to tender the fruits of the inventory search as it would not be "authorized by law".[8] However, some authority suggests a statutory power to impound includes a power to tender the fruits of search.[9]
- ↑
e.g. Highway Traffic Act (ON), s. 172
- ↑
R v Russell, 2017 BCPC 60 (CanLII) (CanLII)], per Koturbash J - re s. 188 of BC Motor Vehicle Act
- ↑
R v Cooper, 2016 BCPC 259 (CanLII) (CanLII)], per Cutler J, at para 16
R v Wint, (2009) 2009 ONCA 52 (CanLII), 93 O.R. 514 (Ont.C.A.), per curiam
R v Nicolosi (1998) 1998 CanLII 2006 (ON CA), 127 CCC (3d) 176 (Ont.C.A.), per Doherty JA
R v Ellis, 2013 ONSC 1494 (CanLII) (CanLII)], per Cambpell J
- ↑
R v Harflett, 2016 ONCA 248 (CanLII) (CanLII)], per Lauwers JA
- ↑ e.g. R v Martin, 2012 ONSC 2298(*no CanLII links)
- ↑ R v Wint, 2009 ONCA 52 (CanLII) (leave to appeal to the SCC denied 2009 CanLII 31959), per curiam
- ↑ R v Stevens, 2011 ONCA 504 (CanLII) (CanLII)], per Armstrong JA
- ↑
R v Ahmed, 2019 SKCA 47 (CanLII) (CanLII)], per Barrington-Foote JA, at para 18("Mr. Ahmed had possession of the vehicle with the permission of the owner. As such, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle: ...")
R v Nolet, 2010 SCC 24 (CanLII) (CanLII)], per Binnie J, at para 53
R v Caslake, 1998 CanLII 838 (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 51, per Lamer CJ, at para 30
- ↑
R v Russell, 2018 BCCA 330 (CanLII), 365 CCC (3d) 481, per D Smith JA
R v Nicolosi (1998), 1998 CanLII 2006 (ON CA), 110 OAC 189 (CA), per Doherty JA
Wint, supra