R. v. Alcantara (J.R.) et al., (2012) 546 A.R. 1 (QB)

• Judge: Greckol, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 08, 2012
• Citations: (2012), 546 A.R. 1 (QB);2012 ABQB 341

R. v. Alcantara (J.R.) (2012), 546 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. JL.086

Her Majesty the Queen v. John Reginald Alcantara and Alan Peter Knapczyk (070060157Q1; 2012 ABQB 341)

Indexed As: R. v. Alcantara (J.R.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Greckol, J.

May 23, 2012.

Summary:

The accused were charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, trafficking in cocaine, and conspiring and trafficking in cocaine for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization (Hells Angels). On "take down" day, the police went to the accused's respective residences with arrest warrants (Criminal Code, s. 507(1)). Absent exigent circumstances or consent to enter, the police had to obtain a "Feeney" warrant under ss. 529, 529.1 or 529.5, providing judicial authorization to enter the residences to execute the arrest warrants. They had not done so. Both accused answered knocks on the door and the police stepped into the residences to arrest the accused. Notwithstanding that they did not have search warrants, the police seized Hells Angels vests and their contents from both residences on the basis that they were in plain view. The accused argued that the vests were seized incidental to unlawful arrests, resulting in an unreasonable search and seizure (Charter, s. 8). They sought exclusion of that evidence under s. 24(2). One of the accused also sought exclusion of evidence identifying his voice from statements he made on the ground that the statements were involuntary and obtained in violation of his right to counsel (s. 10(b)) and his right to remain silent (s. 7). The basis of that argument was that the police did not advise him that they would use his statement as a means of voice identification.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the accused's s. 8 Charter rights were infringed when police entered their residences to arrest them without obtaining a Feeney warrant authorizing entry to effect the arrests. One of the accused, who was detained in his residence after the police effected the unlawful arrest, had also been subjected to an arbitrary detention (s. 9). The vests and their contents were excluded from evidence under s. 24(2). There was no infringement of s. 7 or s. 10(b) in using the accused's voluntary statements for the purpose of voice identification. That evidence was not excluded.

Civil Rights - Topic 1214

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Searches incidental to arrest or detention - [See Police - Topic 3073 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1407

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Identification - The accused was arrested at his residence and transported to the R.C.M.P. detachment - He was advised of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent - At the detachment, he exercised his right to counsel - During the processing phase of his arrest, after speaking with counsel, voice identification evidence was obtained respecting the accused's utterances to police - The accused argued that his right to counsel and right to silence were infringed where the police failed to advise him that his statements could be used for purposes of voice identification - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument, stating that "so long as utterances of the accused for the purpose of voice identification are obtained by police in a fashion that meets the traditional criteria of voluntariness - without threats, promise or oppression, with an operating mind, and as long as the voice identification evidence is not obtained by means of a ruse, those utterances will be found to be voluntary. The obtaining of voice identification evidence without advising the accused that such statements may be used against him for voice identification purposes will not constitute a breach of s. 7 of the Charter so long as: (1) the accused has been advised of his right to remain silent; (2) the accused has been afforded his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel without delay prior to the utterances being made; and (3) the utterances are voluntary. In this way, the right to counsel supports the right to silence and both are respected in balance with the legitimate activities of the police." - See paragraphs 213 to 288.

Civil Rights - Topic 1556

Property - Land - Search or seizure of private residence - [See Police - Topic 3073 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Police - Topic 3073 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1650

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Plain view doctrine - [See Police - Topic 3073 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1650.3

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Exigent circumstances - [See Police - Topic 3073 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent (Charter, s. 7) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1407 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1407 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Police - Topic 3073 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3147

Special powers - Power of search - Search incidental to arrest or detention - [See Police - Topic 3073 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5244.1

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Voice identification - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1407 ].

Police - Topic 3073

Powers - Arrest and detention - Arrest without warrant - Of person in a dwelling - On "take down" day in a large drug investigation, 18 persons were arrested, including the two accused - The police, armed with a general arrest warrant under s. 507(1) of the Criminal Code, went to the accused's residences and, after unsuccessfully trying to reach them on the telephone so that they could surrender, knocked on their front doors - When the accused answered, the police stepped inside the residences to effect the arrests - The police had not obtained "Feeney" warrants under ss. 529, 529.1 or 529.5, which provided for judicial authorization to enter a private dwelling to arrest the accused - They inexplicably believed that a general warrant was sufficient - Although they did not have search warrants, and had no intention of searching the residences, in both cases the police seized the accused's Hells Angels vests which were in plain view (search incidental to arrest) - The Crown conceded that there were no exigent circumstances warranting entering the premises without a Feeney warrant - The accused did not invite the police in, consent to their presence, or waive their right to privacy - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that "the s. 8 Charter rights of [the accused] were breached when the police entered their residences to arrest them, armed with arrest warrants obtained under s. 507(1) of the Code rather than with Feeney warrants ... providing judicial authorization for entry into the homes to effect the arrests." - The vests were seized under the "plain view" doctrine as a search incidental to arrest - As the police were unlawfully in the residences, the doctrine did not apply - The court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter - Entering a private dwelling without a proper warrant was a serious Charter breach, even if done without bad faith - The infringement was not merely technical in nature and was not motivated by urgency or necessity - The police could (and should) have obtained Feeney warrants or waited until the accused exited the residences to arrest them - Admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 84 to 212.

Police - Topic 3108

Powers - Investigation - Power to enter private property - [See Police - Topic 3073 ].

Police - Topic 3186

Powers - Search - Following arrest or detention - [See Police - Topic 3073 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Golub (D.J.) (1997), 102 O.A.C. 176; 34 O.R.(3d) 743 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1997] SCCA 571, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Nguyen (N.) et al., [2006] O.T.C. 1065 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Mercer and Kenny (1992), 52 O.A.C. 70; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 180 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1992), 59 O.A.C. 64 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Smith (W.M.) (1998), 219 A.R. 109; 179 W.A.C. 109; 1998 ABCA 418, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227; 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270; 2002 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Law - see R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al.

R. v. Knee (T.C.) (2001), 285 A.R. 64 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Fawthrop (L.) (2002), 161 O.A.C. 350; 166 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Spindloe (M.) (2002), 207 Sask.R. 3; 247 W.A.C. 3; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 8 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Jones (R.) (2011), 285 O.A.C. 25; 2011 ONCA 632 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. D.M.M. (2005), 203 Man.R.(2d) 226 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Guiboche (G.F.) (2004), 180 Man.R.(2d) 276; 310 W.A.C. 276 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2004), 333 N.R. 194 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Golden (I.V.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 679; 279 N.R. 1; 153 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 83, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208, refd to. [para. 97].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Bedard (M.) (1998), 109 O.A.C. 151; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. M.C.G. (2001), 160 Man.R.(2d) 131; 262 W.A.C. 131; 2001 MBCA 178, refd to. [para. 101].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter et al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 2003 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Lane (1990), 104 N.B.R.(2d) 141; 261 A.P.R. 141 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Jerace (M.J.) (2011), 507 A.R. 337; 2011 ABQB 50, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Tricker (R.) (1995), 77 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Grotheim (K.) (2001), 213 Sask.R. 141; 260 W.A.C. 141; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 49 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2002), 300 N.R. 195; 232 Sask.R. 159; 294 W.A.C. 159 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Petri (V.R.) (2003), 170 Man.R.(2d) 238; 285 W.A.C. 238; 2003 MBCA 1, refd to. [para. 142].

R. v. Wills (1992), 52 O.A.C. 321; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 529 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 145].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13, refd to. [para. 148].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 149].

R. v. Harrison (B.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 494; 391 N.R. 147; 253 O.A.C. 358; 2009 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 152].

R. v. Côté (A.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 215; 421 N.R. 112; 2011 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 173].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 180].

R. v. Singh (J.), [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405; 369 N.R. 1; 249 B.C.A.C. 1; 414 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 214].

R. v. Kisil, 2009 ONCJ 424, refd to. [para. 214].

R. v. Wu (2010), 266 C.C.C.(3d) 482; 44 Alta. L.R.(5th) 333; 2010 ABCA 337, refd to. [para. 215].

R. v. Oliynyk (D.J.) et al. (2008), 253 B.C.A.C. 253; 425 W.A.C. 253; 232 C.C.C.(3d) 411; 2008 BCCA 132, leave to appeal denied (2008), 390 N.R. 389 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 215].

R. v. Meyers (K.S.) (2008), 274 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 5; 837 A.P.R. 5; 2008 NLCA 13, refd to. [para. 215].

R. v. Baird (D.G.) (1990), 105 A.R. 265 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1991), 132 N.R. 265 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 216].

R. v. Loewen (D.J.), [2011] 2 S.C.R. 167; 415 N.R. 397; 502 A.R. 3; 517 W.A.C. 3; 2011 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 221].

R. v. Stonojlovic (S.) (1998), 219 A.R. 101; 179 W.A.C. 101; 1998 ABCA 270, refd to. [para. 221].

R. v. Liang, 2007 YKTC 18, refd to. [para. 221].

R. v. Ngo (D.T.) (2003), 327 A.R. 320; 296 W.A.C. 320; 2003 ABCA 121, refd to. [para. 222].

R. v. Rendon, [1997] O.J. No. 5505 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 222].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192, refd to. [para. 222].

R. v. Wong (W.L.) (1997), 35 O.T.C. 321 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 223].

R. v. Suberu (M.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 460; 390 N.R. 303; 252 O.A.C. 340; 2009 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 223].

R. v. Scarpino, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1563 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 223].

R. v. X.Y.Z. (2011), 506 A.R. 85; 2011 ABQB 95, refd to. [para. 223].

R. v. Papaopoulos (2006), 152 C.R.R.(2d) 189 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 223].

R. v. Ng (1996), 38 C.R.R.(2d) 340 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 223].

R. v. Coady (D.W.) (2008), 275 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 324; 842 A.P.R. 324 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 223].

R. v. Gordon (B.) (1999), 94 O.T.C. 175; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 349 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 225].

R. v. Reid, [1993] O.J. No. 3283 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 228].

R. v. Pinch (G.), [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 5484; 2011 ONSC 5484, refd to. [para. 228].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 239].

R. v. Willier (S.J.), [2010] 2 S.C.R. 429; 406 N.R. 218; 490 A.R. 1; 497 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 253].

R. v. Oickle (R.F.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3; 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201, refd to. [para. 265].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 279].

R. v. Fliss (P.W.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 535; 283 N.R. 120; 163 B.C.A.C. 1; 267 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 279].

R. v. Sinclair (T.T.), [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310; 406 N.R. 1; 293 B.C.A.C. 36; 496 W.A.C. 36; 2010 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 284].

Counsel:

Dennis Hrabcak (Public Prosecution Service of Canada), for the Crown;

A. Clayton Rice (Ouellette Rice), for the accused, Alcantara;

Simon Renouf, Q.C., for the accused, Knapczyk.

This matter was heard between January 23 and May 8, 2012, before Greckol, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on May 23, 2012.