Warrant Searches (Cases): Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)<br>" to "''$1''<br>" |
m Text replacement - "\'\'R v ([^\']+)\'\',\<[Bb][Rr]\>[\s]*\[http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/([^\s]+)\s([0-9]{4} [A-Z]+ [0-9]+)\] \(([^\)]+)\)[\s]*\|" to "{{CanLIIR-S|$1|$2|$3 ($4)}}|" |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
! Case Name !! s.8 !! s.24 !! Summary | ! Case Name !! s.8 !! s.24 !! Summary | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |{{CanLIIR-S|Mahmood|fnr5s|2011 ONCA 693 (CanLII)}}||N||-|| warrant for cell phone number log upheld | ||
||N||-|| warrant for cell phone number log upheld | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | |{{CanLIIR-S|Ngo|fnsl3|2011 ONSC 6676 (CanLII)}}||N||-|| search warrant upheld on s. 8 challenge | ||
||N||-|| search warrant upheld on s. 8 challenge | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | |{{CanLIIR-S|Nguyen|flxb7|2011 ONCA 465 (CanLII)}}|| || ||search warrant challenged; no violation | ||
|| || ||search warrant challenged; no violation | |||
|- | |- | ||
|''R v Pike''<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/29w7k 2010 NLTD 97] (CanLII) | |''R v Pike''<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/29w7k 2010 NLTD 97] (CanLII) | ||
| Line 28: | Line 25: | ||
||Y||?|| | ||Y||?|| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |{{CanLIIR-S|Darby|fps2j|2012 ABCA 27 (CanLII)}}|| |||| ITO upheld anonymous informer | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |{{CanLIIR-S|Dionisi|fprmp|2012 ABCA 20 (CanLII)}}|| |||| ITO upheld, based on anonymous informer | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |{{CanLIIR-S|Morgan|fpmhg|2012 ONCA 28 (CanLII)}}|||||| ITO found valid despite errors in affidavit | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 41: | Line 38: | ||
! Case Name !! s.8 !! s.24 !! Summary | ! Case Name !! s.8 !! s.24 !! Summary | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |{{CanLIIR-S|Afshar|274z7|2009 ABPC 368 (CanLII)}}||Y||Y|| The search warrant to find cocaine and money was founded valid. The ITO contained "conclusory statements" and the informants credibility could not be tested. Certain information was a general knowledge. Such as ownership of the vehicle and occupancy of the residence. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |{{CanLIIR-S|Fan|fwk7p|2013 BCSC 445 (CanLII)}}||N||N|| search warrant of residence based on informer upheld | ||
|- | |- | ||
|''R v Odette''<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fw5kq 2013 ONCJ 62] (CanLII) ||N||N|| residental search on a drug warrant | |''R v Odette''<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fw5kq 2013 ONCJ 62] (CanLII) ||N||N|| residental search on a drug warrant | ||
| Line 70: | Line 67: | ||
|''R v Martin'', <br>[http://canlii.ca/t/2b3ls 2010 NBCA 41] (CanLII) ||Y ||N|| | |''R v Martin'', <br>[http://canlii.ca/t/2b3ls 2010 NBCA 41] (CanLII) ||Y ||N|| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |{{CanLIIR-S|Della Penna|fpl3t|2012 BCCA 3 (CanLII)}}|| || || wiretap allowed on appeal | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 78: | Line 75: | ||
! Case Name !! s.8 !! s.24 !! Summary | ! Case Name !! s.8 !! s.24 !! Summary | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |{{CanLIIR-S|Ramage|2bkq5|2010 ONCA 488 (CanLII)}}||Y||N|| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |{{CanLIIR-S|Emshey|2bmxc|2010 ABPC 237 (CanLII)}}||Y||N|| | ||
|} | |} | ||