R. v. Monney, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 652 (1999)
Linked as:
Extract
R. v. Monney, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 652 (1999)
R. v. Monney, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 652
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v.Isaac Monney RespondentIndexed as: R. v. MonneyFile No.: 26404.1998: December 4; 1999: April 23.Present: L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.on appeal from the court of appeal for ontarioCustoms and excise -- Powers of officers -- Search of the person -- Customs officers detaining accused in order to confirm their suspicions that he had ingested narcotics -- Whether actions of officers authorized by Customs Act -- Whether phrase "secreted on or about his person" covers contraband traveller has ingested -- Whether detention of accused in "drug loo facility" within scope of permissible activities -- Whether customs officers suspected on reasonable grounds that accused had narcotics secreted on or about his person -- Whether search conducted within reasonable time after accused's arrival in Canada -- Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), s. 98.Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Unreasonable search or seizure -- Customs officers detaining accused in order to confirm their suspicions that he had ingested narcotics -- Whether accused's right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure infringed -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8 -- Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), s. 98.Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Life and security of the person -- Customs officers detaining accused in order to confirm their suspicions that he had ingested narcotics -- Whether detention of traveller who is believed to have swallowed narcotics must be conducted under medical supervision -- Whether accused's right to life and security of the person infringed -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 -- Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), s. 98.Prior to his arrival at Toronto airport, M had ingested 84 pellets, each containing approximately five grams of heroin. The customs inspector became suspicious about certain details of M's travel arrangements. M had paid by cheque for an airline ticket issued on the date of departure, indicating that the ticket was purchased in haste. M stated that he was employed as a taxi driver, and that he had been out of the country visiting a sick cousin in Switzerland. Also suspicious to the inspector was the fact that M's passport showed his place of birth as Ghana, given the inspector's informal knowledge of Switzerland as a "transit routing" country for narcotics and Ghana as a source country. M initially denied having travelled to Ghana, but later admitted that he had indeed gone there to visit his mother. The inspector decided he had sufficient grounds to detain M as a suspected drug courier, and informed him of his right to counsel. Officers from a special customs unit arrived some two hours later; they placed M under detention, informed him of his right to counsel, and took him to the "drug loo facility". When M refused to consent to a urine test, he was informed that he would remain in detention until either a negative urine test or clear bowel movement satisfied the officers that he had not ingested narcotics. Following a telephone conversation with his lawyer, M provided a urine sample, which confirmed the presence of heroin. M was arrested and confessed to ingesting the heroin pellets. Following a second telephone call to his lawyer, he began to excrete the pellets. None of the various customs officers who dealt with M w...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
