R. v. Mellenthin

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Citation: (1992), 144 N.R. 50 (SCC),1992 CanLII 50 (SCC),[1992] 3 SCR 615,76 CCC (3d) 481,AZ-92111114,135 AR 1,[1992] CarswellAlta 149,JE 92-1758,16 CR (4th) 273,[1992] SCJ No 100 (QL),144 NR 50,33 WAC 1,12 CRR (2d) 65,40 MVR (2d) 204,5 Alta LR (3d) 232,[1993] 1 WWR 193,[1992] ACS no 100
• Date: 29 May 1992

R. v. Mellenthin (1992), 144 N.R. 50 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Theodore Mellenthin (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(No. 22508)

Indexed As: R. v. Mellenthin

Supreme Court of Canada

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

and Iacobucci, JJ.

November 19, 1992.

Summary:

The accused was charged with possession of narcotics. He was acquitted because of an unreasonable search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at [1991] 5 W.W.R. 519; 117 A.R. 165; 2 W.A.C. 165; 80 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - Unreasonable search and seizure - What constitutes - Police stopped the accused's vehicle at night during a random check stop program - A scan of the interior by flashlight revealed an open gym bag - Police questioned the accused about the contents - Police searched the bag and the vehicle and found vials of narcotics - The Supreme Court of Canada excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter - The accused was arbitrarily detained by the check stop - The questions and search which were not consensual and were not founded on rea­sonable and probable grounds, were an unreasonable search contrary to the Char­ter, s. 8 - See paragraphs 12 to 18.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Arbitrary detention - What constitutes - Police stopped the accused's vehicle at night during a random check stop program - A scan of the interior by flashlight revealed a gym bag - Police asked the accused about its contents - A search of the bag and the vehicle revealed vials of narcotics - The Supreme Court of Canada held that random stops constituted arbitrary detention in breach of the Charter, but were justified under s. 1 of the Charter to prevent needless death and injury from dangerous operation of vehicle - See paragraphs 10 to 11.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Police stopped the accused's vehicle at night during a random check stop program - A scan of the interior by flashlight revealed an open gym bag con­taining a brown bag - Police questioned the accused about the contents - Police searched the bag and the vehicle and found vials of narcotics - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the evidence should be excluded - Admission of the evidence would render the trial unfair and bring the administration of justice into disrepute, where the breach was serious and the evidence, although real, would not have been found except for an illegal search.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 46 C.R.(3d) 193; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 63 C.R.(3d) 14, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 110; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 20, refd to. [para. 10].

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. 19].

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. 19].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 23].

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; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Hébert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 49 C.R.R. 114; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 10]; sect. 8 [paras. 5, 18]; sect. 9 [para. 10]; sect. 24(2) [para. 19].

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-7, sect. 119 [para. 12].

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 198, generally [para. 13].

Counsel:

Harry M. Van Harten, for the appellant;

M. David Gates and Wesley Smart, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

McCormick, Van Harten, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant;

Department of Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 29, 1992, before Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On November 19, 1992, Cory, J., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages.