R. v. A.M., 2008 SCC 19 (2008)
Linked as:
Extract
R. v. A.M., 2008 SCC 19 (2008)
SUPREME COURT OF CANADACitation: R. v. A.M., 2008 SCC 19Date: 20080425Docket: 31496Between:Her Majesty The QueenAppellant v.A.M.Respondent- and -Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of British Columbia, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario), CanadianCivil Liberties Association, St. Clair Catholic District School Board andCanadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law (Justice for Children and Youth)IntervenersCoram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 2)Partially ConcurringReasons: (paras. 3 to 99)Dissenting Reasons:(paras. 100 to 149)Dissenting Reasons:(paras. 150 to 191)LeBel J. (Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. concurring)Binnie J. (McLachlin C.J. concurring)Deschamps J. (Rothstein J. concurring)Bastarache J.Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.______________________________r. v. a.m.Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v.A.M. Respondent andAttorney General of Ontario, Attorney General ofQuebec, Attorney General of British Columbia, CriminalLawyers' Association (Ontario), Canadian Civil LibertiesAssociation, St. Clair Catholic District School Board andCanadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law(Justice for Children and Youth) IntervenersIndexed as: R. v. A.M.Neutral citation: 2008 SCC 19.File No.: 31496.2007: May 22; 2008: April 25.Present: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.on appeal from the court of appeal for ontarioConstitutional law - Charter of Rights - Search and seizure - Sniffer dogs - Schools - Police using sniffer dog to search school for illicit drugs - Positive alert by dog to student's backpack left in school gymnasium leading to examination of content of backpack by police officer, who confirmed presence of illegal drugs - Whether dog sniff constituted search of content of student backpack - If so, whether search reasonable - If search unreasonable, whether evidence should be excluded - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 24(2).Police - Police powers - Investigating tools - Sniffer dogs - Whether common law powers of police to investigate crime include use of sniffer dogs.The police accepted a long-standing invitation by the principal of a high school to bring sniffer dogs into the school to search for drugs. The police had no knowledge that drugs were present in the school and would not have been able to obtain a warrant to search the school. The search took place while all the students were confined to their classrooms. In the gymnasium, the sniffer dog reacted to one of the unattended backpacks lined up against a wall. Without obtaining a warrant, the police opened the backpack and found illicit drugs. They charged the student who owned the backpack with possession of cannabis marihuana and psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking. At trial, the accused brought an application for exclusion of the evidence, arguing that his rights under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated. The trial judge allowed the application, finding two unreasonable searches: the search conducted with the sniffer dog and the search of the backpack. He excluded the evidence and acquitted the accused. The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal.Held (Bastarache, Deschamps and Rothstein JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.1. Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Deschamps and Rothstein JJ.: The police possess a common law power to search using drug sniffer dogs on the basis of a Charter compliant standard of reasonable suspicion.Per Bastarache J.: The police possess a common law power to search using drug sniffer dogs on the basis of a Charter compliant standard of generalized suspicion.Per LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.: There was no authority at common law for the sniffer-dog search in this case.2. Per McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.: The dog sniff of the backpack at the school amounted to a search within s. 8 of the Charter.Per Deschamps and Rothstein JJ.: The dog sniff of the backpack at the school did not amount to a search within s. 8 of the Charter.3. Per McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.: The sniffer-dog search of the backpack at the school violated s. 8 of the Charter.Per Deschamps and Rothstein JJ.: There is no need to determine whether s. 8 of the Charter was violated because the dog sniff of the backpack at the school did not amount to a search.4. Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.: In the circumstances of this case, the evidence should be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.Per Deschamps and Rothstein JJ.: There is no need to determine whether the evidence should be excluded pursuant to s...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
