R. v. A.M., (2008) 236 O.A.C. 267 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 22, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2008), 236 O.A.C. 267 (SCC);2008 SCC 19;[2008] 1 SCR 569;92 OR (3d) 398;EYB 2008-132460;55 CR (6th) 314;[2008] SCJ No 19 (QL);JE 2008-904;236 OAC 267;169 CRR (2d) 1;373 NR 198;77 WCB (2d) 289;230 CCC (3d) 377;293 DLR (4th) 187

R. v. A.M. (2008), 236 O.A.C. 267 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2008] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.129

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. A.M. (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of British Columbia, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario), Canadian Civil Liberties Association, St. Clair Catholic District School Board and Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law (Justice for Children and Youth) (intervenors)

(31496; 2008 SCC 19; 2008 CSC 19)

Indexed As: R. v. A.M.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

April 25, 2008.

Summary:

Police conducting a random search of a school with a sniffer dog found narcotics in A.M.'s backpack which had been left in a gymnasium. A.M. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The Ontario Court of Justice (Youth Justice Court) found that the search was unreasonable, excluded the evidence and acquitted A.M. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 209 O.A.C. 257, dismissed the appeal. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Binnie and McLaughlin JJ., partly concurring, and Bastarache, Deschamps and Rothstein JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Editor's note: for a companion dog-sniffing case see R. v. Kang-Brown,  432 A.R. 1; 373 N.R. 67; 2008 SCC 18.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - Police conducting a random search of a high school with a sniffer dog found narcotics in A.M.'s backpack which had been left in a gymnasium - A.M. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking - The school's principal had issued a standing invitation to police to bring sniffer dogs to the school - Students were aware that the school had a zero-tolerance policy for drugs and that school authorities might resort to drug-sniffing dogs - The entire student body was confined to classrooms to facilitate the search - The trial judge found that the search was unreasonable, excluded the evidence and acquitted A.M. - The Crown appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the dog sniff search of the backpack was reasonable because A.M.'s expectation of privacy in his backpack was negligible - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal in accordance with its companion case of R. v. Kang-Brown - Students were entitled to privacy even in a school environment - Students ought to be able to attend school without undue interference from the state, but subject, always, to normal school discipline - A search was conducted - There was no authority for this type of search by police in the statute law or at common law - The search violated s. 8 of the Charter - The court should not attempt to craft a legal framework of general application for the use of sniffer dogs in schools - That was a matter for Parliament - Given the seriousness of the breach, the evidence was properly excluded - See paragraphs 1 and 2.

Civil Rights - Topic 1524

Property - Personal property - Search and seizure by police - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1641.4

Property - Search and seizure - Drug-sniffing dogs - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1642

Property - Search and seizure - Search - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Education - Topic 5283

Students - Students' rights - Expectation of privacy (incl. searches, seizures and drug-sniffing dogs) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Police - Topic 3024

Powers - Common law - Scope of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Police - Topic 3189

Powers - Search - Use of dogs - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kang-Brown (G.) (2008),  431 A.R.1; 373 N.R. 67; 2008 SCC 18, appld. [paras. 1, 4, 102, 151].

R. v. M.R.M., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393; 233 N.R. 1; 171 N.S.R.(2d) 125; 519 A.P.R. 125, refd to. [paras. 1, 44, 111, 159].

R. v. Tessling (W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432; 326 N.R. 228; 192 O.A.C. 168; 2004 SCC 67, refd to. [paras. 4, 121, 164].

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 5, 127, 156].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351, refd to. [para. 8].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [paras. 9, 136, 164].

Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [paras. 13, 181].

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. 35].

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. [paras. 39, 164].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [paras. 41, 161].

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. 41].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 42].

Kyllo v. United States (2001), 533 U.S. 27, refd to. [para. 43].

Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 55, 156].

United States v. Place (1983), 462 U.S. 696, refd to. [para. 56].

United States v. Jacobsen (1984), 466 U.S. 109, refd to. [para. 56].

Illinois v. Caballes (2005), 543 U.S. 405, refd to. [para. 56].

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. [paras. 65, 158].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Duarte - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

R. v. Wiggins, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 62; 103 N.R. 118, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Thompson et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; 114 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 68].

Doe v. Renfrow (1980), 631 F.2d 91 (7th Cir.), refd to. [para. 69].

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. [paras. 73, 156].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627; 106 N.R. 385; 39 O.A.C. 385, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Clayton (W.) et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 725; 364 N.R. 199; 227 O.A.C. 314; 2007 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Lal (S.N.) (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 47; 184 W.A.C. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

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. [paras. 96, 158].

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

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. [paras. 96, 181].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 129, 161].

R. v. Campanella (J.) (2005), 196 O.A.C. 188; 75 O.R.(3d) 342 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 184].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Amsterdam, Anthony G., Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment (1973-74), 58 Minn. L. Rev. 349, p. 388 [para. 53].

Australia, New South Wales Ombudsman, Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001 (2006), p. ii [paras. 86, 144].

Bird, Robert, An Examination of the Training and Reliability of the Narcotics Detection Dog (1996-97), 85 Ky. L.J. 405, p. 406 [para. 86].

Bryson, Sandy, Police Dog Tactics (2nd Ed. 2000), generally [para. 88].

Coughlan, Steve, and Gorbet, Marc S., Nothing Plus Nothing Equals ... Something? A Proposal for FLIR Warrants on Reasonable Suspicion (2005), 23 C.R.(6th) 239, p. 241 [para. 54].

Coughlan, Steve, Privacy Goes to the Dogs (2006), 40 C.R.(6th) 31, generally [para. 54].

Eden, Robert S., K9 Officer's Manual (1993), generally [para. 88].

Gold, Alan D., Privacy Suffers From the Heat: R. v. Tessling, Paper delivered at Law Society of Upper Canada 5th Annual Six-Minute Criminal Defence Lawyer (June 4, 2005), paras. 7, 8 [para. 38].

Katz, Lewis R., and Golembiewski, Aaron P., Curbing the Dog: Extending the Protection of the Fourth Amendment to Police Drug Dogs (2006-07), 85 Neb. L. Rev. 735, generally [para. 86].

Katz, Lewis R., In Search of a Fourth Amendment for the Twenty-first Century (1989-90), 65 Ind. L.J. 549, p. 581 [para. 54].

Kerr, Ian, and McGill, Jena, Emanations, Snoop Dogs and Reasonable Expectations of Privacy (2007), 52 Crim. L.Q. 392, p. 410, fn. 57 [para. 40].

Lammers, Ken, Canine Sniffs: The Search That Isn't (2005), 1 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 845, pp. 849, 850 [para. 71].

MacKay, A. Wayne, Don't Mind Me, I'm from the R.C.M.P.: R. v. M.(M.R.) - Another Brick in the Wall Between Students and Their Rights (1997), 7 C.R. (5th) 24, generally [para. 47].

Ontario, Ministry of Education, Ontario Schools: Code of Conduct (2001), generally [paras. 30, 175]; p. 3 [para. 132].

Pollack, Kenneth L., Stretching the Terry Doctrine to the Search for Evidence of Crime: Canine Sniffs, State Constitutions, and the Reasonable Suspicion Standard (1994), 47 Vand. L. Rev. 803, pp. 820, 821 [para. 10].

Pomerance, Renee M., Shedding Light On the Nature of Heat: Defining Privacy in the Wake of R. v. Tessling (2005), 23 C.R.(6th) 229, pp. 234, 235 [para. 68].

Rosenberg, Marc, Controlling Intrusive Police Investigative Techniques Under Section 8 (1991), 1 C.R.(4th) 32, p. 43 [para. 54].

Stuart, Don, Reducing Charter Rights of School Children (1999), 20 C.R.(5th) 230, generally [para. 47].

Counsel:

Kenneth J. Yule, Q.C., Jolaine Antonio and Lisa Matthews, for the appellant;

Walter Fox, for the respondent;

Robert W. Hubbard and Alison Wheeler, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Dominique A. Jobin and Gilles Laporte, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Kenneth D. Madsen, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Frank Addario and Emma Phillips, for the intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Jonathan C. Lisus, Christopher A. Wayland and Sarah Corman, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Thomas McRae, for the intervenor, the St. Clair Catholic District School Board;

Martha Mackinnon, for the intervenor, the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law (Justice for Children and Youth).

Solicitors of Record:

Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant;

Walter Fox, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of Quebec, Québec, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Shibley Righton, Toronto, Ontario, for the

intervenor, the St. Clair Catholic District School Board;

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law (Justice for Children and Youth).

This  appeal  was  heard on  May 22, 2007, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on April 25, 2008, and the following opinions were filed:

LeBel, J. (Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 and 2;

Binnie, J., partially concurring (McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring) - see paragraphs 3 to 99;

Deschamps, J., dissenting (Rothstein, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 100 to 149;

Bastarache, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 150 to 191.