R V Muller

3011 Words7 Pages

Jack Lindsay 657265724 CRIM 230 Kendra Waugh March 6, 2024 Case Briefs for Legal Memo. In this paper, I will write case briefs regarding Section 8 and Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Canada, for the following five cases: R v. Muller, 2014 ONCA 780, R v. Fine, 2015 BCPC 3, R v. Hamdan, 2017 BCSC 467, R v. Montgomery, 2009 BCCA 41, and R v. Ashby, 2013 BCCA 334. In this, I will be providing each case citation, facts, issues, decisions, and reasoning. CITATION: R. Muller, 2014 ONCA 780. FACTS: The Appellant, Bart, Alec, Muller, was arrested without warrant after exiting a building that officers were surveying. A search warrant was executed in that building to find a drug dealing suspect by the alias “Biggie” (R v. Muller, 2014). P. 7). …show more content…

v. Fine, 2014. p.16). The accused read her s. 10 rights upon her second arrest, and she informed Constable Craven that she wanted to speak to counsel. A female officer, Constable, McLean, arrived at the scene and conducted a “cursory search,” then the accused was placed in handcuffs and detained in the back of Constable McLean’s police car “(R v. Fine, 2014. p.17). Constable Craven then seized and searched the accused’s purse, discovering “$915,” and a bag of baking soda, which was collected along with the two cellphones the accused was holding during her arrest “(R v. Fine, 2014. p.19). During booking, Constable Celli instructed Constable McLean to perform the strip search on the accused due to information he previously received from Corporal Williams, who acted in a supervisor capacity. The accused was provided the chance to release any drugs she had in her possession before the search, but did not respond. The accused underwent a strip search conducted by Constable McLean while a female civilian employee took notes, while taking place in a room being recorded and broadcast. The accused willfully complied with Constable McLean’s direction in removing …show more content…

Fine, 2014. p.36). ISSUE(S): Was videotaping and broadcasting the strip search conducted on the accused in violation of her s.8 rights? DECISION: The Provincial Court of British Columbia found that the strip search briefly violated the accused’s s.8 rights due to the recording and broadcasting, but societal interests outweighed the violations. REASONING: Strip searches have a higher degree of invasiveness and high potential to embarrass whoever is subject to privacy concerns. Because of the high degree of privacy invasion and potential to cause embarrassment, strip searches are held to higher regulations; they must not be out of routine but instead proven necessary by reasonable and probable grounds, also they are to be conducted by an officer of the same sex who has been directed by a supervisor and be conducted in privacy in a police station with the subject never being fully nude. The Provincial Court of British Columbia determined that there were reasonable and probable grounds for a strip search. These grounds included evidence found incident to the accused arrest, her suspicious behaviour suggesting she was hiding something, and

Open Document