R. v. Cater (K.), 2012 NSPC 2

JudgeDerrick, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 13, 2012
JurisdictionNova Scotia
Citations2012 NSPC 2;(2012), 312 N.S.R.(2d) 242 (PC)

R. v. Cater (K.) (2012), 312 N.S.R.(2d) 242 (PC);

    987 A.P.R. 242

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.052

Her Majesty The Queen v. Kyle Cater

(1997518 to 1997550; 2035773 to 2035784; 2012 NSPC 2)

Indexed As: R. v. Cater (K.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Derrick, P.C.J.

January 13, 2012.

Summary:

Kyle Cater and two others were charged with numerous firearms/weapons charges. When Kyle Cater was arrested, police seized his cell phone and had a forensic analysis performed on it. No warrant was obtained. The accused sought to exclude the cell phone evidence, arguing that his s. 8 Charter rights were violated.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court dismissed the application.

Editor's Note: there are several related cases involving this accused.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1655.3 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1655.3

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Cell phones - Kyle Cater was charged with numerous firearms/weapons charges - Much of the evidence in the police's investigation came from authorized intercepted phone calls - When Cater was arrested, police seized his cell phone and had a forensic analysis performed on it by the RCMP's Integrated Technological Crime Unit - No warrant was obtained - It was a phone with limited functions (not a smart phone) and was not protected by a password - The accused sought to exclude the cell phone evidence, arguing that his s. 8 Charter rights were violated - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that the search of the cell phone by forensic analysis did not violate s. 8 - It was a search incidental to his arrest, delayed only by the "best practice standard" decision to have the information accessed by a forensic expert - The search was conducted in accordance with key purposes for a search incident to arrest: discovery and preservation of evidence for use in prosecuting Cater and prevention of the destruction of the evidence - The search was executed in a wholly reasonable manner, complying with the best practices for accessing the information - Alternatively, the court would not exclude the evidence - The Charter breach was not serious, the search had only a modest impact on Cater's rights and exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1655.3 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8583

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Who may raise Charter issues (incl. standing) - Kyle Cater was charged with numerous firearms/weapons charges - When he was arrested, police seized his cell phone and had a forensic analysis performed on it - The accused sought to exclude the cell phone evidence, arguing that his s. 8 Charter rights were violated - The accused's counsel referred to the phone as the accused's "alleged" phone - She indicated she was conceding that the cell phone was Cater's only for the purposes of the Charter voir dire but would be insisting that the Crown be held to "strict proof at the trial." - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that this proposed approach was not tenable - Cater could not assert a reasonable expectation of privacy in the seized phone in order to advance a s. 8 Charter claim and then deny any interest in the phone at trial - Requiring the Crown to meet the high burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial did not mean an accused was "free to talk out of both sides of his mouth" when it came to asserting his constitutional entitlements - See paragraphs 5 to 9.

Criminal Law - Topic 3147

Special powers - Power of search - Search incidental to arrest or detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1655.3 ].

Police - Topic 3185

Powers - Search - Following arrest or detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1655.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Lal (S.N.) (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 47; 184 W.A.C. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Hall (D.) (2006), 279 Sask.R. 295; 372 W.A.C. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Le (T.T.) (2009), 268 B.C.A.C. 58; 452 W.A.C. 58 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. LeBlanc (J.A.) (2009), 276 N.S.R.(2d) 97; 880 A.P.R. 97 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Warford (R.G.) (2001), 207 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 263; 620 A.P.R. 263 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 36].

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. 36].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask. R. 1, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Nolet (R.) et al. (2010), 403 N.R. 1; 350 Sask.R. 51; 487 W.A.C. 51 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 39].

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. 39].

R. v. U.P.M. (2010), 399 N.R. 200; 346 Sask.R. 1; 477 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Law - see R. v. 28221109 Canada Inc. et al.

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, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Hiscoe (J.S.) (2011), 310 N.S.R.(2d) 142; 983 A.P.R. 142; 2011 NSPC 84, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Jones (R.) (2011), 285 O.A.C. 25; 2011 ONCA 632, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Vu (T.L.), [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1260 (S.C.), revd. in part (2012), 315 B.C.A.C. 36; 535 W.A.C. 36; 2011 BCCA 536, refd to. [para. 42].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Polius (K.), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. H39 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Little, [2009] O.J. No. 3278 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Lim (No. 2), [1990] O.J. No. 3261 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Fearon, [2010] O.J. No. 5745 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Mohamad (H.) (2004), 181 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Brady (W.B.) (1996), 6 O.T.C. 307 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Giles (D.F.) et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. H63 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Rhode Island (State) v. Gribble, 2007 R.I. Super. LEXIS 149, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Backhouse (J.) (2005), 195 O.A.C. 80 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Manley (M.) (2011), 275 O.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Harrison (B.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 494; 391 N.R. 147; 253 O.A.C. 358, refd to. [para. 70].

Counsel:

Richard Hartlen and Shauna MacDonald, for the Crown;

Elizabeth Cooper, for Kyle Cater.

This application was heard on December 20-22, 2011, by Derrick, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on January 13, 2012.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • R. v. Cater (K.), 2014 NSCA 74
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 13 d3 Agosto d3 2014
    ...(6) the dismissal of an application to exclude evidence obtained from searching his cell phone as an unreasonable search and seizure (312 N.S.R.(2d) 242; 987 A.P.R. 242 ); (7) the dismissal of a Garofoli application respecting the wiretap authorization ( 313 N.S.R.(2d) 28 ; 990 A.P.R. 28 ......
  • R. v. Hiscoe (J.S.), 2013 NSCA 48
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 23 d2 Abril d2 2013
    ...1147, refd to. [para. 45]. R. v. Otchere-Badu (F.), [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 1059; 2010 ONSC 1059, refd to. [para. 45]. R. v. Cater (K.) (2012), 312 N.S.R.(2d) 242; 987 A.P.R. 242; 2012 NSPC 2, refd to. [para. R. v. Polius (K.), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. H39 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 48]. R. v. Manl......
  • R v Barton,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 28 d1 Setembro d1 2020
    ...for example, Giles; R v Lefave, 2003 CarswellOnt 3772; R v Mann, 2012 BCSC 1247 (reversed on appeal, 2014 BCCA 231); Franko; R v Cater, 2012 NSPC 2; R v Karim, 2012 ABQB 470; R v Ballendine, 2011 BCCA 221 at paras 64-70. Other cases held that a warrant must be obtained after a lawful seizur......
  • R. v. Liew (S.F.) et al., 2012 ONSC 1826
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 27 d2 Março d2 2012
    ...determination. [141] Ultimately, I prefer the position of Nova Scotia Provincial Court Justice A.S. Derrick, as set out in R. v. Cater , 2012 NSPC 2, at para. 52. Specifically, that "police should not conduct cursory searches of cell phones seized incident to arrest where it is not urgent t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • R. v. Cater (K.), 2014 NSCA 74
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 13 d3 Agosto d3 2014
    ...(6) the dismissal of an application to exclude evidence obtained from searching his cell phone as an unreasonable search and seizure (312 N.S.R.(2d) 242; 987 A.P.R. 242 ); (7) the dismissal of a Garofoli application respecting the wiretap authorization ( 313 N.S.R.(2d) 28 ; 990 A.P.R. 28 ......
  • R. v. Hiscoe (J.S.), 2013 NSCA 48
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 23 d2 Abril d2 2013
    ...1147, refd to. [para. 45]. R. v. Otchere-Badu (F.), [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 1059; 2010 ONSC 1059, refd to. [para. 45]. R. v. Cater (K.) (2012), 312 N.S.R.(2d) 242; 987 A.P.R. 242; 2012 NSPC 2, refd to. [para. R. v. Polius (K.), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. H39 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 48]. R. v. Manl......
  • R v Barton,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 28 d1 Setembro d1 2020
    ...for example, Giles; R v Lefave, 2003 CarswellOnt 3772; R v Mann, 2012 BCSC 1247 (reversed on appeal, 2014 BCCA 231); Franko; R v Cater, 2012 NSPC 2; R v Karim, 2012 ABQB 470; R v Ballendine, 2011 BCCA 221 at paras 64-70. Other cases held that a warrant must be obtained after a lawful seizur......
  • R. v. Liew (S.F.) et al., 2012 ONSC 1826
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 27 d2 Março d2 2012
    ...determination. [141] Ultimately, I prefer the position of Nova Scotia Provincial Court Justice A.S. Derrick, as set out in R. v. Cater , 2012 NSPC 2, at para. 52. Specifically, that "police should not conduct cursory searches of cell phones seized incident to arrest where it is not urgent t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT