Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


R. v. Edwards (1996)

No description

Bianca Caputo

on 4 February 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of R. v. Edwards (1996)

R. v. Edwards (1996)
By: Bianca, Alessia, Connor, Christine, Cassandra, Maxine & Tajai
Influence on Policing
- The police conduct did not affect a personal right of the accused

- Charter is the most important thing to remember when it comes to arrests, and search and seizure

- Major issue in this case: Can the accused challenge admission of evidence obtained as a result of a search of third party's premises?

- The Charter protects people not places
Influence of Policing
- Does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their partner’s home?

- Did the police conduct unreasonable search and seizure under s.8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

- Section 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms importance
Summary Of The Case
- Calhoun Edwards was a suspected drug trafficker

- His girlfriend, Shelly Evers, had her own apartment where he spent time at as well

- The police arrested Edwards for driving with a suspended license

- As the officers stopped Edwards vehicle, they saw him talking on his cellphone and swallow a foreign object
Summary of The Case Cont.
- Edwards car was then impounded and he was taken into custody

- The police felt they did not have enough evidence to get a search warrant to search Shelly Evers apartment for suspected drugs

- The police made several statements to Mrs. Evers that were lies and half truths in order to get her to cooperate

- They eventually arrested Shelly Evers after finding crack cocaine in her apartment
Influence of Policing
- A main issue in this case: whether the accused should have had "a reasonable expectation of privacy” and if the search and seizure of Edward’s girlfriend’s apartment was reasonable given the circumstances

- Constitutional protection of privacy..

- Factors to consider in this case

Conclusion of The Case
- The trial judge believed that Edwards did not dismiss the burden of establishing that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his girlfriends apartment which resulted in the admission of the evidence.

- The case went on to the Ontario Court of Appeal

- The appellant judge ruled that Edward had no possessory interest in his girlfriends apartment

- The judge upheld the trial judges conviction of the appellant
Faculty of law | Common law section. (n.d). Retrieved

from: http://www.common law.uottawa.ca/


Kwasniewski, B. (2011) Ontario Court of Appeal

considers employee expectations of privacy in

information stored on work computers. Retrieved from:



R.v.Edwards - SCC Cases (lexum). (n.d) Retrieved from:



Game Time!
Log onto www.kahoot.com to play the game!
Influence on Policing
- This case is essentially important because it demonstrates the difficult job a police officer may have when dealing with a case where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that criminal activity is occurring, but they may or may not have reasonable grounds to act on it in the way by which they would like to.

- In this case, Abella J.A. had a dissenting view where she concluded that the evidence should have been excluded.

- Why does this case have an impact on police operations?
Full transcript