R. v. Mercer (R.S.), 2004 ABPC 94

• Judge: Daniel, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: Wednesday March 24, 2004
• Citations: 2004 ABPC 94;(2004), 362 A.R. 136 (PC)

R. v. Mercer (R.S.) (2004), 362 A.R. 136 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. JL.021

Her Majesty The Queen v. Robert Scott Mercer

(030609762P10101; 2004 ABPC 94)

Indexed As: R. v. Mercer (R.S.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Daniel, P.C.J.

June 9, 2004.

Summary:

The accused arrived at the Calgary bus terminal with luggage containing 8.6 kilo­grams of marijuana worth $130,000. The accused left his luggage unattended in an area of the terminal where access was restricted to passengers, bus employees and security personnel. A police drug detector dog, randomly checking luggage in that area, made a positive sniff for illegal drugs. With­in 13 minutes, the accused would be board­ing another bus on route to Ontario. The officer located the accused, arrested him, removed his luggage key from his backpack and opened the luggage. Passengers at the terminal had notice that they could be demanded to reveal the contents of their luggage before boarding. The accused was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. The accused alleged, inter alia, a reasonable expectation of priv­acy, that the warrantless dog sniff was an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8 of the Charter and that the evidence should be excluded.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that the dog sniff was not a search violating s. 8 of the Charter. Alternatively, if s. 8 of the Charter was breached, the breach would be minimal and the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

Civil Rights - Topic 1214

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - Searches incidental to arrest or detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - The accused's luggage, which contained 8.6 kilograms of marijuana worth $130,000, was left unattended in an area of the Calgary bus terminal where access was restricted to passengers, bus employees and security personnel - A police drug-sniffing dog, randomly check­ing luggage, made a positive sniff for drugs - Within 13 minutes, the accused would be boarding another bus to Ontario - The officer located the accused, arrested him, removed his luggage key from his backpack and opened the luggage - Passen­gers at the terminal had notice that they could be demanded to reveal the contents of their luggage before boarding - The accused alleged a reasonable expectation of privacy, that the dog sniff was an unreas­onable search and seizure (Charter, s. 8) and that the evidence should be excluded - The Alberta Provincial Court held that a person leaving luggage unattended in a public place such as a bus terminal had little or no expectation of privacy - The dog sniff was not a search engaging s. 8 - Given the dog's success record, a positive sniff gave reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused - The search of the accused's person and backpack, and the opening of the luggage with the key found, were lawful and reasonable as being inci­dental to the arrest - Alternatively, any breach of s. 8 was merely technical, done in good faith and did not affect trial fair­ness (real evidence) - The evidence would not have been excluded under s. 24(2).

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 1653.2

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Bus terminal - [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 ].

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest and detention - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hoffart, [2001] A.J. No. 1605 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Donovan, [1991] N.W.T.J. No. 37, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Hoang (T.V.) (2000), 284 A.R. 201 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Dinh, [2001] A.J. No. 302, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Daley (I.M.) (2001), 281 A.R. 262; 248 W.A.C. 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Arabi (H.)(2002), 313 A.R. 269 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Truong (S.H.) (2002), 169 B.C.A.C. 97; 276 W.A.C. 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Lam, [2002] A.J. No. 1623, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.) (2003), 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 174 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Dinh (H.T.) (2003), 330 A.R. 63; 299 W.A.C. 63 (C.A.), dist. [para. 15].

R. v. Yuen (G.M.-C.) (2003), 345 A.R. 305 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Hoang (T.V.) (2003), 339 A.R. 291; 312 W.A.C. 291 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Hoang (T.V.) (2004), 346 A.R. 67; 320 W.A.C. 67 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 27].

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. 27].

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

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; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 23, refd to. [para. 27].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 62].

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.), affing. (1995), 107 Man.R.(2d) 24; 109 W.A.C. 24; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 240 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Counsel:

B. Veldhuis, for the Crown;

C. Stewart, for the accused.

This matter was heard on March 24, 2004, at Calgary, Alberta, before Daniel, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 9, 2004.