R. v. Feeney (M.), (1997) 91 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 11, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 91 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)

R. v. Feeney (M.) (1997), 91 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);

    148 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Michael Feeney (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(24752)

Indexed As: R. v. Feeney (M.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

May 22, 1997.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction by a judge and jury of second degree murder.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 54 B.C.A.C. 228; 88 W.A.C. 228, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 1262

Security of the person - Lawful arrest - What constitutes - [See first Police - Topic 3073 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1285

Security of the person - Unlawful arrest - On private property - [See second Police - Topic 3073 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1406

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Fingerprinting - During a murder in­vestigation, an accused was arrested un­lawfully and taken to the police station - He was fingerprinted and questioned before he had an opportunity to consult with his lawyer - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that procedures that are taken incidental to and following an un­lawful arrest, which impinge on the rea­sonable expectation of privacy of the arrestee, will generally constitute a breach of s. 8 of the Charter - See paragraph 57.

Civil Rights - Topic 1556

Property - Land - Search or seizure of private residence - An elderly man in a small community was killed in a savage attack - Police entered the accused's dwelling without a warrant and without permission - The accused was in bed - Police required the accused to move to the door where his clothing and appearance could be seen - Police took the accused's shirt which was blood-stained - Later police obtained a warrant and removed money, cigarettes and shoes from the dwelling - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the warrantless arrest following the forced entry into the dwelling was unlawful and the seized evidence was inadmissible - See paragraphs 20 to 82.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Un­reasonable search and seizure defined - During a murder investigation, police entered the accused's dwelling without a warrant and without permission - The accused was detained and his bloody shirt seized - He was informed of his right to counsel - He had no opportunity to exer­cise his rights - He made statements - On the basis of the information in the state­ments, police obtained a search warrant respecting the dwelling - They seized items implicating the accused - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the seized evidence was inadmissible - The search and seizure violated s. 8 of the Charter, because it was issued on the basis of information obtained as a result of Charter breaches - See paragraph 56.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes detention - Police inves­tigated the murder of an 85 year old man - A police officer entered a suspect's trailer without a warrant and without per­mission - The suspect was in bed - The police officer shook the suspect's leg and told him to rise - He then ordered the suspect to go to the door of the trailer - After the police officer saw blood stains on the suspect's clothing, he arrested the suspect and informed him of his Charter right to counsel - The Supreme Court of Canada opined that detention began when the officer touched the suspect's leg - The suspect's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was breached at the time of his initial detention - See paragraphs 52 to 55.

Civil Rights - Topic 4608

Right to counsel - Right to be advised of - At the time of his arrest the accused was told "A Legal Aid duty lawyer is available to provide legal advice to you without charge and can explain the Legal Aid plan to you. If you wish to contact a Legal Aid duty lawyer, I can provide you with a telephone number" - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that this information satisfied the requirements of s. 10(b) of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused's s. 10(b) rights were violated - He was not cau­tioned when he was first detained - When he was eventually cautioned the infor­mation given to him did not satisfy s. 10(b) - Furthermore, he was not given an adequate opportunity to consult counsel before being questioned - See paragraphs 52 to 55.

Civil Rights - Topic 4617.1

Right to counsel - Notice of - Sufficiency of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4608 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The accused was unlawfully arrested and questioned in breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel - Items were seized from his home under an un­lawful search warrant - The Supreme Court of Canada determined that the evi­dence should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter - In determining the fair­ness of the trial, the court classified the evidence as conscriptive or non-conscrip­tive - The statements in the trailer and the station were conscriptive and not discoverable and their admission would affect the fairness of the trial - The Char­ter breaches were serious and admission of the evidence would bring greater harm to the repute of the administration of justice than its exclusion - See paragraphs 58 to 81.

Criminal Law - Topic 3212

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Arrest - Arrest without warrant - [See all Police - Topic 3073 ].

Police - Topic 3073

Powers - Arrest and detention - Arrest without warrant - Of person in a dwelling - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that under case law and s. 495(1) of the Criminal Code "a warrantless arrest fol­lowing a forced entry into private premises is legal if: (a) the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person sought is within the premises; (b) proper an­nouncement is made; (c) the officer believed reasonable grounds for the arrest exist; and (d) objectively speaking, rea­sonable and probable grounds for the arrest exist" - See paragraph 21.

Police - Topic 3073

Powers - Arrest and detention - Arrest without warrant - Of person in a dwelling - After the violent death of an 85 year old man, a police officer entered a suspect's trailer without permission, roused him and took him to the door where his appearance and blood-stained clothes could be examined - The police officer arrested the suspect and took him to the police station - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the warrantless arrest was unlawful, where the police officer did not have a subjective belief that grounds for arrest existed - See paragraphs 24 to 26 - Fur­thermore, objectively reasonable and probable grounds for arrest did not exist - See paragraphs 27 to 33.

Police - Topic 3073

Powers - Arrest and detention - Arrest without warrant - Of person in a dwelling - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the powers of police to arrest without warrant a person in a dwelling - The court stated that at common law the arrest was lawful under some circumstances - Under the Charter the protection afforded privacy requires that generally a warrant is required for an arrest in a private dwelling - Exceptions to the requirement exist; in cases of hot pursuit, society's interest in effective law enforcement takes prece­dence over the privacy interest and the police may enter a dwelling to make an arrest without a warrant - The court did not decide whether exigent circumstances other than hot pursuit may justify a warrantless entry in order to arrest - See paragraphs 20 to 48.

Police - Topic 3186

Powers - Search - Private property - Police entered without warrant and without permission the trailer of a suspect in the violent beating death of an 85 year old man - Police took the suspect to the trailer door and saw that his shirt was blood-stained - Police seized the shirt - After arrest, the suspect was taken to the police station where he gave statements before meeting with his lawyer - On the basis of the statements, police obtained a search warrant and seized items of prop­erty from the trailer - The Supreme Court of Canada determined that the seized items were inadmissible - The warrantless arrest after forcible entry was unlawful either at common law or under the Charter, s. 8 - Also, the suspect's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was breached - Accordingly, evidence obtained under the search war­rant was inadmissible, because it was based on information gained by the warrantless arrest and the Charter breaches - See paragraphs 20 to 82.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 18].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 20].

Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Landry, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145; 65 N.R. 161; 14 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 1; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. D.R., H.R. and D.W., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291; 197 N.R. 321; 144 Sask.R. 81; 124 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 29].

Dumbell v. Roberts, [1944] 1 All E.R. 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Semayne's Case (1604), 5 Co. Rep. 91a; 77 E.R. 194, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Colet, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 2; 35 N.R. 227, refd to. [para. 40].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Macooh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 802; 155 N.R. 44; 141 A.R. 321; 46 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 1 C.R.(4th) 62; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 193; 51 B.C.L.R.(2d) 157; 50 C.R.R. 285, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 330; 74 C.R.(3d) 129; [1990] 2 W.W.R. 220; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Pozniak (W.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 310; 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 58 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 70 C.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 171, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 67 C.R.(3d) 224; 37 C.R.R. 252, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 101].

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. 103].

R. v. Wilson, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1291; 108 N.R. 207; 107 A.R. 321; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 142, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Grunwald, [1991] B.C.J. No. 235 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. Zastowny (N.E.) (1992), 19 B.C.A.C. 206; 34 W.A.C. 206; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 492 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. Breton (M.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 120].

Illinois v. Gates (1983), 426 U.S. 213 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 121].

People v. Simon (1955), 290 P.2d 531 (Cal. S.C.), refd to. [para. 124].

Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980), 448 U.S. 98 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. Debot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. Charlton (T.S.) (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 272; 27 W.A.C. 272 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. Miller, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 230; 83 N.R. 239; 64 Sask.R. 320, affing. (1986), 25 C.C.C.(3d) 554 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Jenkins, [1992] O.J. No. 672 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Bennett (T.W.) et al. (1996), 19 O.T.C. 382 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Dupuis (W.J.) (1994), 162 A.R. 197; 83 W.A.C. 197 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Anderson (A.) (1996), 7 O.T.C. 1; 49 C.R.(4th) 305 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 135].

Payton v. New York (1980), 445 U.S. 573 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 139].

R. v. Lyons, Prevedores and McGuire, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 633; 56 N.R. 6; 58 A.R. 2, refd to. [para. 143].

United States v. Reid (1995), 69 F.3d 1109 (11th Cir.), refd to. [para. 146].

United States v. Scroger (1996), 98 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir.), refd to. [para. 146].

United States v. Wicks (1992), 995 F.2d 964 (10th Cir.), cert. denied (1993), 114 S.Ct. 482, refd to. [para. 147].

People v. Johnson (1981), 637 P.2d 676 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 162].

People v. Williams (1994), 641 N.E.2d 296 (Ill.), refd to. [para. 163].

State v. Storvick (1988), 428 N.W.2d 55 (Minn.), refd to. [para. 163].

State v. Gonsalves (1989), 553 A.2d 1073 (R.I.), refd to. [para. 163].

People v. Smith (1992), 604 N.E.2d 858 (Ill.), refd to. [para. 163].

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. 175].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 67 C.R.(3d) 87; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 37 C.R.R. 335; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 179].

R. v. Cobham, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 360; 172 N.R. 123; 157 A.R. 81; 77 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 185].

R. v. Latimer (1995), 134 Sask.R. 1; 101 W.A.C. 1; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), affd. [1997] 1 S.C.R. 217; 207 N.R. 215; 152 Sask.R. 1; 140 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 185].

R. v. Lorincz (K.S.) (1995), 174 A.R. 321; 102 W.A.C. 321; 9 M.V.R.(3d) 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 185].

R. v. Louden, [1995] B.C.J. No. 2446 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 185].

R. v. Anderson (1984), 2 O.A.C. 258; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Sabourin (1984), 29 Man.R.(2d) 101; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 68 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Evans, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 4 C.R.(4th) 144; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 315, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Baig, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 537; 81 N.R. 87; 25 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 187].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 495(1)(a) [para. 21].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fontana, James A., The Law of Search and Seizure in Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), pp. 786, 787, 788, 789 [para. 49].

La Fave, Wayne R., Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (3rd Ed. 1996), vol. 3, pp. 271, 272, 273, 274 [para. 161].

Law Reform Commission of Canada (Working Paper 4, Arrest 1985), p. 115 [para. 46].

Parker, Graham, Developments in Criminal Law: The 1985-86 Term (1987), 9 Supreme Court L.R. 247, p. 247 [para. 40].

Slobogin, Christopher, Testifying: Police Perjury and What to Do About It (1996), 67 U. of Col. L. Rev. 1037, p. 1056 [para. 121].

Counsel:

Charles Lugosi, for the appellant;

William F. Ehrcke, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Lugosi & Company, Prince George, British Columbia, for the appellant;

The Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 11, 1996, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On May 22, 1997, the decision of the court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Sopinka, J. (La Forest, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 82;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting (Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., con­curring) - see paragraphs 83 to 197;

Lamer, C.J.C., dissenting - see para­graphs 198 to 200.