Search and Seizure Laws

Search and Seizure Laws

By: Arunima and Bavin

Bibliography

1. http://www.charterofrights.ca/en/16_00_03

2. http://www.chartercases.com/r-v-mann-2004-3-s-c-r-59/

What it means?

Why was this section of this Charter created?

What is a Search and Seizure law?

Section 8 of the Charter means that you have the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Section 8 protects this right. It limits how and when police or other officials can search you personally; search your property; or use wiretaps. It also limits the power of the state to take your property.

In most situations, police or other officials must get a search warrant from a judge before they can search you or your property.

Search and Seizure Law assurance

Under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states that "everyone has the right to be secured against reasonable search or seizure." This section is under the legal rights in the Charter.

The section 8, of the charter was created to protect privacy rights.

The dominant focus of the law of search and seizure is to limit what police can see and hear, to limit their ability to invade spaces people prefer to keep private.

These laws protect our privacy and prevents us from being searched by the state without proper grounds.

This law is in place so that we have a sense of freedom and safety and so that we feel like our privacy rights are being protected.

• Everyone has the right to know why they are being legally searched.
• Police must have a reasonable excuse to search your vehicle
• Police must physically see the illegal substance or be tipped to search the vehicle without a warrant.
• Any evidence obtained through the violation of section 8 can be excluded as evidence in a trial under section 24(2)
• Passengers cannot be charged for any contents in the vehicle

Legal Case #1

Legal case #2 R. v. Boyd, 2013 BCCA 19

R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59

The accused, Philip Henry Mann, had been placed under investigative detention by police on the grounds that he matched the description of a break and enter suspect. While under investigative detention, he submitted to a pat down search for weapons, and police proceeded to search his pockets, ultimately finding a bag of marijuana. It soon became apparent that Mr. Mann had no connection to the alleged break and enter for which he was initially detained.

Mr. Mann was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. The issue was whether police could use evidence obtained through an investigative detention for the ulterior purpose of prosecuting a drug charge when there were not reasonable grounds to search Mr. Mann’s pockets in the first place.

Legal case #1 (continuation)

The Appellant, Craig Boyd, was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after a search of his vehicle resulting from a police road block. The officer who stopped his vehicle apparently smelled an odor of burnt marijuana, then placed Mr. Boyd under arrest. After searching his car the police found 4 small bags of cocaine.

Case Law: Here, the section 8 of the charter is being violated because the mere odor of burnt marijuana is not sufficient to support the inference that an individual is in possession of drugs. The trial judge therefore found that Mr. Boyd’s Charter rights had been infringed and excluded the evidence, resulting in an acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that although the initial search was justified on the grounds of officer safety, the subsequent fishing expedition for unrelated incriminating evidence was in violation of Section 8 of the Charter, and that admission of the illegally obtained evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute:

While a frisk search is a minimally intrusive search, as noted by this Court in Cloutier, supra, the search of the appellant’s inner pocket must be weighed against the absence of any reasonable basis for justification. Individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their pockets. The search here went beyond what was required to mitigate concerns about officer safety and reflects a serious breach of the appellant’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

This case demonstrate that investigative detention is, by definition, narrow in purpose, and cannot be used to justify the collection of unrelated evidence to which the police would not normally be entitled.