Manner of Execution

• Author: David Schermbrucker/Randy Schwartz/Mabel Lai/Nader Hasan
• Pages: 437-456



Manner of

Execution

12

I. The “Knock and Announce” Rule Versus Dynamic Entry .......... 

A. Ocer Safety and Personal Safety of Occupants .......... 

B. Destruction of Evidence .............................. 

C. Documentation of Reasons for Decisions ................ 

D. Policy to Always Use Dynamic Entry .................... 

E. Police Equipment: Balaclavas, Flash Bang Grenades, Etc. ... 

F. Must There Be Prior Judicial Authorization for a “No-Knock”

or Dynamic Entry? ................................... 

II. Securing the Scene Prior to Warrant Arrival .................... 

A. Search Warrant Not Yet Issued ......................... 

B. Police Cannot Articially Create Exigent Circumstances ..... 

C. Search Warrant Issued but Still in Transit ................ 

III. Duty to Have and Produce a Copy of the Warrant ............... 

IV. Minimization ............................................ 

V. Conclusion .............................................. 

© [2021] Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.

Search and Seizure

In 1982, when the Charter was brand new, Ruby Collins was sitting in a pub in the

coastal village of Gibson’s Landing, British Columbia. A police ocer rushed in and

grabbed her by the throat so she could not swallow any drugs she may have been hold-

ing in her mouth. In 1987, her case was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada and

established the enduring matrix for a search and seizure to be constitutional within

section 8 of the Charter:

1. the search must be authorized by law;

2. the authorizing law must be reasonable; and

3. the manner of the search must be reasonable.1

This chapter deals with the third criterion, the reasonableness of the manner of the

search or seizure, by addressing four of the most common issues: dynamic entry,

securing the scene pending a search warrant, producing a copy of the search warrant,

and minimization.

I. The “Knock and Announce” Rule Versus

Dynamic Entry

When police wish to execute a search warrant, they generally do not make an appoint-

ment. They like the element of surprise. However, there is a strong common law pre-

sumption that police executing a search warrant—particularly on a residence—must

“knock and announce,” that is, knock on the door, announce their presence as police

with a search warrant in hand, and state their purpose for entry. This connotes some

reasonable time for a person to answer the door, see the warrant, and, presumably,

admit the police so they can execute it. Dynamic entry—also known as “hard entry”

or “no-knock entry”—is the exception. Although a dynamic entry does not have to

be the subject of prior judicial authorization, it must be justified on any subsequent

Charter review.

In the pre-Charter case of Eccles v Bourque,2 DicksonJ explained the rule:

Except in exigent circumstances, the police ocers must make an announcement prior

to entry. There are compelling considerations for this. An unexpected intrusion of a

man’s property can give rise to violent incidents. It is in the interests of the personal

safety of the householder and the police as well as respect for the privacy of the indi-

vidual that the law requires, prior to entrance for search or arrest, that a police ocer

identify himself and request admittance. No precise form of words is necessary.… The

traditional demand was “Open in the name of the King.” In the ordinary case police o-

cers, before forcing entry, should give (i) notice of presence by knocking or ringing the

1 R v Collins, [1987] 1 SCR 265, 1987 CanLII 84.

2 [1975] 2 SCR 739, 1974 CanLII 191.

© [2021] Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.