Search And Seizure

R. V Collins Main Points Of Law Officers did not have a reasonable and probable grounds for believing that Collins was in possession of drugs. The search and seizure– in this case the throat hold– was held to be unreasonable. The court struggled with whether the evidence should be excluded under s.24 (2) of the Charter. The Supreme Court held that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute if the disputed drug evidence was allowed Officers did not have a reasonable and probable grounds for believing that Collins was in possession of drugs. The search and seizure– in this case the throat hold– was held to be unreasonable. The court struggled with whether the evidence should be excluded under s.24 (2) of the Charter. The Supreme Court held that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute if the disputed drug evidence was allowed

R. v. Mellenthin Main Points Of Law The case concerned the validity of a search of the vehicle while a motorist was detained during an “Alberta Check Stop”. The Supreme court of Canada ruled that the check-stop programs cannot be used as a justification for searching all vehicles, and the police must have reasonable and probable grounds for conducting a search (e.g. seeing a drugs, alcohol, or weapons in the vehicle). The search of the gym bag was held to be unreasonable. The case concerned the validity of a search of the vehicle while a motorist was detained during an “Alberta Check Stop”. The Supreme court of Canada ruled that the check-stop programs cannot be used as a justification for searching all vehicles, and the police must have reasonable and probable grounds for conducting a search (e.g. seeing a drugs, alcohol, or weapons in the vehicle). The search of the gym bag was held to be unreasonable.

Cloutier v. Langlois Main Points Of Law The case dealt with the validity of a search (in this case, a frisk search) subsequent to an arrest. The common law right to search incidental to arrest is limited to situations: The case dealt with the validity of a search (in this case, a frisk search) subsequent to an arrest. The common law right to search incidental to arrest is limited to situations: 1) where police consider it necessary for applying the law, there is a valid objective for the search 2) the search does not intimidate or pressure the accused into making an admission 3) the search is not conducted in an abusive manner. In this case, the frisk search was justified. It was not considered excessive, and took into consideration police safety.

Was The Search Unreasonable? R. v. MacCrone CROWN ARGUMENT The pornagraphic material was in plain view inside the apartment. The police officers were therefore justified in seizing the shopping bag and in subsequently returning and conducting a search under warrant for further evidence of pornography. The pornagraphic material was in plain view inside the apartment. The police officers were therefore justified in seizing the shopping bag and in subsequently returning and conducting a search under warrant for further evidence of pornography.

Was The Search Unreasonable? R. v. MacCrone DEFENSE ARGUMENT The seizure of the shopping bag without prior authorization of a search warrant was unlawful. The child pornography were not in plain view. The photographs were contained inside a shopping bag. If the pornography in the shopping bad were in plain view, then the police should have taken a picture of the bag prior to removing it from the apartment in order to prove the evidence was in plain view. The seizure of the shopping bag without prior authorization of a search warrant was unlawful. The child pornography were not in plain view. The photographs were contained inside a shopping bag. If the pornography in the shopping bad were in plain view, then the police should have taken a picture of the bag prior to removing it from the apartment in order to prove the evidence was in plain view.

Decision In R. v MacCrone, Justice Morgan found Mr. MacGrone guilty of possession of child pornography. Because MacCrone has already spent 168 days in in prison before and during the trial, the judge sentenced him to two years on probation. He will have to regularly report to a probation officer, and follow his or her counselling recommendations. The terms of the probation order require that MacCrone refrain from communicating with children under the age of 14. He was also ordered to provide a DNA sample. The judge found that the entry by the police into Mr. MacCrone’s apartment was legal and upheld the seizure of the pornography under the plain view doctrine. In R. v MacCrone, Justice Morgan found Mr. MacGrone guilty of possession of child pornography. Because MacCrone has already spent 168 days in in prison before and during the trial, the judge sentenced him to two years on probation. He will have to regularly report to a probation officer, and follow his or her counselling recommendations. The terms of the probation order require that MacCrone refrain from communicating with children under the age of 14. He was also ordered to provide a DNA sample. The judge found that the entry by the police into Mr. MacCrone’s apartment was legal and upheld the seizure of the pornography under the plain view doctrine.