R. v. Carlson (T.T.), (2002) 313 A.R. 319 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 07, 2002
• Citations: (2002), 313 A.R. 319 (QB);2002 ABQB 464;2002 ABQB 459

R. v. Carlson (T.T.) (2002), 313 A.R. 319 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. MY.044

Her Majesty The Queen v. Treana Theresa Carlson (accused)

(0160-65617-Q1; 2002 ABQB 459; 2002 ABQB 464)

Indexed As: R. v. Carlson (T.T.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

May 7, 2002 and May 8, 2002.

Summary:

The accused was charged with drug offences after drugs and drug paraphernalia were found in her vehicle following a warrantless search by police based on an anonymous telephone tip. The accused alleged that her s. 8 Charter right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure was denied.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the warrantless search violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights. In a subsequent decision, reported at paragraphs 30 to 44 below, the court ordered that the evidence obtained be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - What constitutes unreasonable search and seizure - Police received an anonymous tip that drugs were being sold in a certain vehicle occupied by four person (one being J.G.) parked outside the York Hotel - The driver was described as a 38 year old woman - The accused, the driver, was obviously "decades" older than 38 - There were only three persons, none known to police - There was no J.G. - Police immediately detained the occupants and conducted a warrantless search which uncovered drugs and drug paraphernalia - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the warrantless search violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights - The tip was not compelling and it did not meet any standard of credibility - The informant was obviously not known to police and his/her reliability could not be ascertained - Police did nothing to corroborate the tip - There were no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused possessed drugs - The court subsequently excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1651

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Motor vehicles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 49, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 577; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 12 O.R.(3d) 182; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482; 20 C.R.(4th) 1; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 338; 43 M.V.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Jacques (J.R.) and Mitchell (M.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 312; 202 N.R. 49; 180 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 458 A.P.R. 161; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 5].

United States of America v. Future Electronique Inc. (2000), 195 D.L.R.(4th) 575; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 403 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Hewlin (S.R.) (2001), 190 N.S.R.(2d) 283; 594 A.P.R. 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Sanchez-Ruiz (1991), 121 N.B.R.(2d) 106; 304 A.P.R. 106; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 501 (C.A.), affd. (1993), 158 N.R. 315; 139 N.B.R.(2d) 241; 357 A.P.R. 241; 25 C.R.(4th) 407 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

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; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Richardson (M.) (2001), 152 B.C.A.C. 306; 250 W.A.C. 306; 153 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 43 C.R.(5th) 371 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. T.A.V. (2001), 299 A.R. 96; 266 W.A.C. 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al. (2002), 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

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

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

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Leipert (R.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 281; 207 N.R. 145; 85 B.C.A.C. 162; 138 W.A.C. 162; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fontana, J.A., and Keeshan, D., The Law of Search and Seizure in Canada (5th Ed. 2002), p. 459 [para. 17].

Counsel:

Deborah J. Alford, for the Crown;

Murray P. Stone, for the accused.

This case was heard on May 6-7, 2002, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandums of judgment on May 7 and 8, 2002.