Criminal Procedure and Evidence (Class 6) PDF

Criminal procedure and evidence CLASS 6  Duty to inform the arrested person Section 29.(2) of the criminal code and Section 10 (a) of the charter establish the right of the arrested person to be informed of the reasons for the arrest.  R. v. Evans  The accu...

Criminal procedure and evidence CLASS 6  Duty to inform the arrested person Section 29.(2) of the criminal code and Section 10 (a) of the charter establish the right of the arrested person to be informed of the reasons for the arrest.  R. v. Evans  The accused, a mentally challenged youth, was convicted of first degree murder. The accused was arrested on marijuana charges. During the course of interrogation the accused became the prime suspect. The police did not formally advise the accused that he was being detained for murder. The police investigation was aggressive and marked by their lying about finding the accused fingerprint at one of the murder scenes. The Supreme Court excluded the incriminatory statements but did not find violation of S10 (a).  Do you agree? See problems  Entry into premises to arrest R. v. Feeney Police searched Feeney's house without a warrant and found evidence of criminality. D challenges the search as unreasonable. the Supreme Court of Canada held that the evidence obtained by the search is inadmissible and violative of section 8& 10(b) of the charter The court held “under the charter”… the privacy interest outweighs the interest of the police and warrantless arrests in dwelling- houses are prohibited.  R. v. Feeney (Cont)  …To summarize, in general, the following requirements must be met before an arrest for an indictable offence in a private dwelling is legal: a warrant must be obtained on the basis of reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and to believe the person sought is within the premises in question; and proper announcement must be made before entering. An exception to this rule occurs where there is a case of hot pursuit. Whether or not there is an exception for exigent circumstances generally has not been fully addressed by this Court, nor does it need to be decided in the present case given my view that exigent circumstances did not exist when the arrest was made.  R. v. Feeney (Cont) The only problem with the Feeney judgment is that the court did not recognize exigent circumstances exception. Later parliament enacted section 529.3. to allow the exception of exigent circumstances for warrantless entry.  R v. Cornell (2010)  The Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. He admits he committed this offence. He says, however, that the cocaine, which was found in a search of his room when he was not at home, was obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and therefore should not have been admitted into evidence. The police, who had a valid search warrant, used a “hard entry” — they rammed open the front door without knocking or announcing their presence — and nine masked officers of the tactical team secured the house. The trial judge and majority of the Court of Appeal held that the appellant’s rights under s. 8 of the Charter had not been infringed because the search had been lawfully authorized and reasonably conducted.  R v. Cornell (Cont) Two issues were raised in the Supreme Court: 1.Did the trial judge err in finding that the search was conducted reasonably? 2. If the search was conducted unreasonably, should the cocaine found in the appellant’s room be excluded by virtue of s. 24(2) of the Charter because its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute?  R v. Cornell (Cont) The Supreme Court found no violation. The court (4-3 decision) held that although the knock and announce principle remains valid and required, there is no onus on the police to explain why they thought it was necessary to conduct the search without knock and announce. The court also held that failure of the tactical team to have the warrant with them is not an error given that the primary investigator had a copy of the search warrant (he was not among the first group who raided the house).  R. v. Godoy The police received a call from radio dispatch concerning an "unknown trouble call" originating from the appellant's apartment. An "unknown trouble call" is a 911 call in which the line is disconnected before the caller speaks. The 911 system is equipped to trace all incoming calls and automatically provides dispatchers with the address of the caller. Unknown trouble calls are deemed by police policy to be the second highest priority distress call, superseded only by calls concerning police officers in distress.  R. v. Godoy (cont)  Four officers arrived at the appellant's apartment and knocked on the door. The appellant partially opened the door and when asked if things were alright inside, responded: "Sure, there is no problem". Officer Clafton asked if they could enter the apartment to investigate if there was a problem but the appellant tried to close the door. Officer Clafton prevented him from shutting the door by putting his foot in the way. The four officers then entered the dwelling. Officer Clafton testified that as soon as they got inside, he heard a woman crying. He found the appellant's common law wife in their bedroom, curled in a fetal position and sobbing. The officer observed considerable swelling above her left eye. He testified that she stated the appellant had hit her.  R. v. Godoy-cont. The question for the Supreme Court is whether police entry without warrant in exigent is lawful or not. The court recognized the exception of exigent circumstances in warrantless entry of dwellings.  R. v. Latimer This is the case of the farmer who killed his severely disabled child. The court endorsed the old meaning of arrest that arrest occur when (a) the actual seizure or touching of a person’s body with a view to his detention or (b) the pronouncement of the “words of arrest ” to a person who submits to the arresting officer. Please distinguish between arrest and detention. See problems