R. v. Franko (T.)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Judge: Lee, J.
• Citation: (2012), 541 A.R. 23 (QB),2012 ABQB 282
• Date: 29 March 2012

R. v. Franko (T.) (2012), 541 A.R. 23 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. MY.052

Her Majesty the Queen v. Travis Franko (100087840Q1; 2012 ABQB 282)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Lee, J.

April 30, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The accused's vehicle was stopped by police. He was arrested without warrant and he and his vehicle were searched. Cocaine was found in the vehicle. The accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude the drug evidence. He alleged a violation of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. The search of the accused's person, cell phone and vehicle was incidental to a lawful arrest and did not violate the accused's Charter rights. The drug evidence was admissible at trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 1214

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Searches incidental to arrest or detention - A paid police informant told police that the accused was supplying cocaine to Edmonton dealers and provided personal information that was verified by police - The informant advised that the accused was picking up cocaine on January 21 - Earlier in January he had told the police that the accused would be picking up cocaine soon - The police put the accused under surveillance - He was observed placing a canvas bag in his trunk and heading for Red Deer/Calgary - When the accused returned, his vehicle was stopped - The accused was arrested for possession for the purpose of trafficking, advised of his Charter rights, and transported to police headquarters - The accused's vehicle and cell phones were searched (texts downloaded) - One kilogram of cocaine was found hidden in the vehicle - Texts said to be consistent with the drug trade were found - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the accused's s. 24(2) Charter application to exclude the evidence on the ground that his s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights were violated - The police officer had, subjectively and objectively, reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused - He was not arbitrarily detained - The informant's information was compelling - The police knew of the accused's long-time involvement in drug trafficking - The informant was known for two years and had provided reliable information in the past - The police, through other inquiries and surveillance, corroborated the informant's information - The officer made notes of his conversations with the informant, except for the short January 21 conversation - Notwithstanding the lack of notes, the court found the information reliable and the officer's testimony that he received that information credible - The arrest was lawful, and the warrantless search of the vehicle was a lawful search incidental to his arrest - The court rejected the accused's argument that although the police could seize his cell phones, they could not search their contents without a warrant - Where, as here, there was a clear connection between the offence for which the accused was arrested and the search of the cell phone contents, a warrant was not required and a search of the cell phone contents was also lawful as incidental to the arrest - The accused was not arbitrarily detained or subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure - The evidence was admissible at trial - See paragraphs 69 to 176.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1214 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1651

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Motor vehicles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1214 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1655.3

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure, cell phones - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1214 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1214 ].

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest and detention - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1214 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 69].

Nagy v. Canada et al. (2006), 397 A.R. 94; 384 W.A.C. 94; 2006 ABCA 227, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Payne (D.N.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 198; 2005 ABCA 261, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Janvier (A.V.) (2007), 302 Sask.R. 190; 411 W.A.C. 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Cayer (A.J.), [1991] B.C.T.C. Uned. 380 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Carlson (T.T.) (2002), 313 A.R. 319 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. N.O. (2009), 448 A.R. 253; 447 W.A.C. 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Forster (J.C.) (2009), 481 A.R. 323 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Dufault (J.D.) (2009), 448 A.R. 365; 447 W.A.C. 365 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Goodwin (A.A.) (2009), 483 A.R. 205 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. X.Y.Z. (2011), 506 A.R. 85 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 73].

Alberta (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) v. Petros et al. (2011), 527 A.R. 142 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Gill (R.S.) (2008), 327 Sask.R. 190 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Frieburg (T.) (2011), 263 Man.R.(2d) 174 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Madge (D.), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 620 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. White, [2008] O.J. No. 3577 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Pereira, [2000] O.J. No. 3741 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Johnson (E.) (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 190; 226 W.A.C. 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Detilleux, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1332 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Caron (D.W.) (2011), 299 B.C.A.C. 217; 508 W.A.C. 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Rajaratnam (M.) (2006), 397 A.R. 126; 384 W.A.C. 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Le (T.T.) (2009), 268 B.C.A.C. 58; 452 W.A.C. 58; 2009 BCCA 14, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Vangent and Green (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 313 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Lim (1990), 1 C.R.R.(2d) 148 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Barrett (D.) (1993), 64 O.A.C. 99; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 266 (C.A.), revd. (1995), 179 N.R. 68; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Burns (R.H.) (1994), 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Saplys (L.) (1999), 90 O.T.C. 129 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Hayes, [2000] O.J. No. 73 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Rajalingam, [2003] O.J. No. 530 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Rajalingam (R.) (2004), 190 O.A.C. 270 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Gregoire, [2005] A.J. No. 79 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Gregoire, [2005] A.J. No. 529 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Debot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Shokar (J.S.), [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. 376; 2006 BCSC 770, refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.) (1998), 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Giles (D.F.) et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. H63; 2007 BCSC 1147, refd to. [para. 140].

R. v. Manley (M.) (2011), 275 O.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

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. 141].

R. v. Morelli - see R. v. U.P.M.

R. v. Polius (K.), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. H39; 196 C.R.R.(2d) 288 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 155].

R. v. Hull (T.), [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 3139 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. Weir (D.T.) (2001), 281 A.R. 333; 248 W.A.C. 333; 2001 ABCA 181, refd to. [para. 160].

R. v. Lefave (R.), [2003] O.T.C. 872; 2003 CanLII 21344 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 162].

R. v. Fearon, 2010 ONCJ 645, refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. Ballendine (K.D.) (2011), 304 B.C.A.C. 20; 513 W.A.C. 20; 2011 BCCA 221, refd to. [para. 165].

R. v. Twitchell (M.A.) (2010), 511 A.R. 33; 2010 ABQB 693, refd to. [para. 166].

Diaz v. California, 2011 WL4530138 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 169].

R. v. Finnikin (C.), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. X48; 2009 CanLII 82187 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 172].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Martin Committee Report - see Ontario, Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge, Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions, Report of (The Martin Committee Report).

Ontario, Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge, Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions, Report of (The Martin Committee Report) (1993), Recommendation 26 [para. 80].

Counsel:

Jim Johnson, Public Prosecution Service of Canada, for the respondent/Crown;

Robert H. Davidson, Q.C., for the applicant/accused.

This application was heard on September 26-29, 2011, and March 29, 2012, before Lee, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on April 30, 2012.