Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
The development of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was reconstituted in 1982 to allow human rights and responsibilities. The charter emplaces their rights for people to not discriminate against other races or
…show more content…
Tse was R v. Duarte. R v. Duarte had gone to the Supreme Court of Canada to fight section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case presented similar features to R v. Tse. Mario Duarte was under investigation for a drug related situation. Police officers had set up a warrantless camera in the hotel room where the undercover cop would meet Mario Duarte, and was later convicted. Officers used the video as evidence but it was found that it violated section 8 of the Charter. Later the case had been appealed and Justice Peter Cory, found that what the Police officers had done was justified and did not violate the reasonable privacy. Justice Peter Cory relied upon United States v. White and Lopez v. United States to justify his reasoning. Another case that relates is Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc. This case is a landmark case to the Supreme Court of Canada because it is the first privacy rights case that is based on s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The investigation began by the government by giving authority to Combines Investigation Act to examine files in Southam Newspaper. The judge in Alberta found that the Act was conflicting with the Charter and therefore the evidence gathered was inadmissible. The last case that relates is R v. Godoy. This case relates to R v. TSE because police officers abused their powers by entering into an apartment because of a received 911 call that had been dropped before the caller …show more content…
It has been a controversial topic for many years since s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enabled when the Charter came into effect in 1982. When or if a police officer were to come up to you under suspicion that you have something illegal or detrimental in your backpack they are not allowed to search or seize anything without a warrant. There are pros and cons to this topic because under section 7 everyone has the right to life, liberty and security so in a negative light if citizens feel unsafe because a person is suspicious and putting others in danger the police are not allowed to interfere without a warrant to make sure that evidence does not become void in a court case, if it arises to that. In a positive light if someone calls 911 and they are in trouble and the police are able to get a warrant on time to help then it would save lives and make society a more secure environment. There has been various cases where spatial privacy has been abused different ways: telephone, Internet, and etc. At this point many may agree that the law itself (Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom) may need to be updated in terms of specifying when it’s needed for a warrant and when it’s not as technology has also been updated since the Constitution was made in 1982. Society’s view may change after cases like R v. Tse, as police can yet invade ones privacy constitutionally or not it may also
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important document that allows us to live our lives without arbitrary governmental control, although there may be certain times when rights should be limited. The R. v Oakes case is a perfect example of this situation coming into play. David Edwin Oakes was caught with an unlawful possession of hash oil and was automatically convicted of trafficking, under section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. By looking at the Charter, it was clear that section 8 of the NCA violated his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed in section 11.d. With that in mind, the respondent brought in a motion that challenged section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. Since the Supreme Court and the Crown were confident that the suspect was trafficking narcotics, they created a four criteria ruling, in order to reasonably limit the rights of the respondent. This is permissible under section 1 of the Charter, which states that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms…only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.”2 The respondent’s case passed the first criterion which stated that “the reasoning for limiting the Charter must be proven important enough to override a constitutionally protected right.” The case did not pass the second criterion which stated that “there must be an appropriate connection between the limitation of rights and the objective of the legislation.”2 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the respondent was released. After reviewing the case it was clear that even though the suspect did not have his rights limited against him, limiting rights should be used more often in severe cases.
The Canadian justice system, although much evolved, is having difficulty eliminating bias from the legal system. Abdurahman Ibrahim Hassan, a 39 year old man, died on June 11 in a Peterborough hospital, while under immigration detention. He came to Canada in 1993 as a refugee and was suffering from mental, and physical health issues such as diabetes and bipolar disorder. There was an overwhelming amount of secrecy surrounding the death of this troubled Toronto man, and to this day no light has been shed on this tragedy. (Keung, 2015) An analysis of the official version of the law will reveal how race class and gender coincide with the bias within the legal system.
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
Publication bans have been a part of the Criminal Code since 1988. A publication ban is a court law that prohibits trial information from leaving the case. Since these bans were first introduced in Canada, they have become a very useful tool in Common Law. These bans have been frequently used over the years for many purposes including avoiding the risk of adverse consequences to participants and for more accurate trial procedures. Having publication bans are beneficial, in every which-way, than not. These bans contribute positively to the environment of law and most importantly, the society within. This essay will outline why the court should have the right to impose a publication ban in Canada. It will support the debate that if Canada wishes to build towards a reputation of having trials handled efficiently, then it should not change the nature of these publication bans. It will portray the importance of these bans through a thorough explanation of how the bans work, and two solid arguments of the cause on the society and environment. First, this essay will discuss basics of publication bans and how they work. Then, this essay will point out how publication bans contribute to trial fairness in the court. Finally, this essay will touch upon how publication bans protect victims and those involved in the trials.
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
David Milgaard’s story is one of the most striking and well know representation of wrongful conviction as it happened right here in Saskatoon. Even further than that his case has been called “one of the most famous examples of wrongful conviction in Canada” (CBC News, 2011). In January of 1970, 17-year-old ...
When is a search not a search? The Fourth Amendment was made to protect prevent unwanted search and seizure. Were DLK’s rights violated by using a thermal imager without a warrant? The Fourth Amendment protects citizens rights from unlawful search and seizure. In the case of DLK, the supreme court had to decide if the government went to far. The government went to far because the search violated the Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully obtaining information without a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
One of the Legal Rights the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects is: The right to be free of imprisonment, search, and seizure without reasons backed by the law. “In a undisclosed school in Canada, there was a sudden police checking, in which police dogs roamed around the hallway of the school to see if there was any suspicious substance or object. During the checking, the police fo...
One of the main powers law enforcement officers carry is the authority to make citizens involuntarily give up their rights. Most people when confronted by police get mild to moderate panic reaction, can become nervous or anxious, and do as much as possible to limit the time spent with the officer. Due to the difference in power between a citizen and a police officer, citizens often unknowingly, give up their constitutional rights when an officer acts tough or bullies them (Guidelines?1).
The police may apply for a search warrant due to the amount of evidence they have gathered. Between the security footage, the race, height, hair, facial hair, and tattoo of a descripted skull with crossbones on his neck is enough for the police to apply for the warrant. Stated by Cornell University Law School “An arrest warrant is issued by the competent authority upon a showing of probable cause, which means a warrant may be issued if a reasonable person would believe the information at hand is sufficient to suggest criminal activities.” (Cornell University Law School Arrest Warrant) The only reason the arrest warrant would not be approved is if the officers did not have enough probable cause. But in this case with the distinct tattoo of
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
Reasonable Suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable su...
In the 1980’s legal tension involving police searches was a direct result of the war on drugs campaign. Officers were encouraged to stop and seize or search suspicious vehicles to put a halt on drug trafficking (Harns, 1998). But placing this aggressive approach into effect had many negative outcomes. One problem was that it put police on a thin line with the constitutional laws. To no surprise, pretty much no data estimating how often police searches fall outside constitutional laws exist. Only cases that catch the courts attention are logged into the record books. A case study held in “Middleberg” on suspect searches reports that 70 of the 86 searches didn’t result in arrest; citations weren’t presented nor were any charges filed. Just about all of the unconstitutional searches, 31 out of 34, weren’t reported to the courts, nor were they intended to be reported.