R. v. Kang-Brown

um, case Brief presentation.

Okay. This case took place at the Supreme Court of

Canada. Between the appellant good bank came Brown and the

responded Her Majesty the Queen.

Mm. First, we're going to talk about procedural procedural background

of this case.

Um, So the initial trial was held in the Alberta

Court House.

Uh, the Alberta court of Queen's Bench by the horrible

Madam Justice remain.

She found that the accused was not arbitrarily detained, um,

or a lawfully search under the Canadian Charter of Rights

and Freedoms.

And she entered.

And then they interact a conviction for the accused in

the Court of Appeal of Alberta.

The majority agreed with the trial judge, and this means

his appeal.

Now we're gonna talk about the law.

The law in this case was based on two primary

sections of the Charter of Rights and also based on

a test.

The first one is section eight of the Canadian Charter

of Rights, and the second one is section 24 to

and the test is them the water field test.

Um, going to the section eight.

It says that everyone has the right to be secured

against a reasonable search or seizure and Section 24 to

says that where in proceedings under section, when a court

concludes that evidence was obtained in a matter that in

French or denied any rights of freedoms guaranteed by this

charter, the evidence should be excluded.

And if it is established that having regard to all

the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would

bring the administration of justice into this repute.

And well, this case also thought was based on on

the water field test, which is, um, this test helps

to determine the limits of policies of police authority to

interfere with a person's liberty or property, for instance, during

dandruff during random stops and detentions.

Okay, so let's talk about the facts facts on in

this case or, um, quite uh huh, important.

Well, because around or just to give a background of

this, uh, around noon of January 25th of 2000 and

two, uh, police officer Sergent um McPhee, Constable Gary Richie

and Sergent Valerie Boone.

We were patrolling the Calgary Greyhound bus terminal, and, uh,

surgeon Murphy testified that while observing about arriving at the

station, missed the accused or the appellant disembarked and gave

him an along I contact according to to him, um,

to the officer he had been taught to watch for

that suspicious eye contact during during his training.

According to Sergent McPhee.

Also, Mr Kendra was acting, um, uncomfortable and suspicious.

And after several like contacts between him and Mr Ken

Brown, Sergent McPhee asked him to open his his back.

However, he pulled by, pulled the back back and and,

uh, and then refused to cooperate.

Um, Sergeant Murphy in order to surgeon Bowie and as

the sniffer dog, too, to check his bag.

The dog identified that there were drugs in the bag

and Mr Kim Brown was charged with possession of cocaine

for the purpose of trafficking and possession of heroin.

Um, a trial.

Also some, uh, some other facts as well.

These ones are the ones that I just mentioned.

But other facts as well are that trial he accused

argue violation of his rights under section 89 10 and

24. 2 of the charter um, justice remain this mystery

accused application to exclude the cocaine evidence seized by from

his back by the police.

Uh, just justice remain also determined that the smell from

the back or the others from the back in the

public transport transportation facility did not constitute information of expected

privacy. And section eight of the chart of the charter

was not engaged.

Um, consequently or after that, the majority of the Alberta

Court of Appeal.

This means the accused appeal after this, and they called

the trial judge decision.

Um Okay, so, um, there are some, uh, things that

were also related to this case, and we need to

understand after the fact we need to know the issues.

Um, before we go into decision into the decision the

issues related to this decision where if the appellant have

reasonable expectations of privacy or if the if the use

of a sniff, a sniffer dog by the police was

authorized, uh, common law and whether the first stage of

the water field test was satisfied.

Um, so in the decisions, um, four judges of the

court decisions of the Supreme Court four judges of the

court belief that the trial judge aired in principle six

out of the Supreme Court nine judges agreed that weren't

the searches are unreasonable under or the searches, uh, where

a reasonable under the Canadian law.

It was in this period that the surgery was not

authorized by attitude.

And, uh, in addition, there was an argument among the

judges concerning the test.

The majority of the judges stated that you first have

to ask if the officer was acting in general exercise

of his duty before getting into the water field test.

Um meanwhile, six judges concluded that the sniffer dogs search

violated Section eight of the charter, contrary to the other

three judges, sustainment.

For that reason, it was concluded that the evidence should

be excluded.

Person Section 24 24 2 of the charter.

In conclusion, the court found that the search and the

tension was, um, violated section eight of the charter and

the evidence should be excluded because it would interfere with

the fairness of justice under section 24 of the charter.

So the appeal was accepted and the conviction was set

aside. And then here some references and thank you

R. v. Kang-Brown

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated