R. v. Pulfer, (1984) 37 Sask.R. 254 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Neville, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 19, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1984), 37 Sask.R. 254 (ProvCt)

R. v. Pulfer (1984), 37 Sask.R. 254 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Pulfer

Indexed As: R. v. Pulfer

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Neville, P.C.J.

December 19, 1984.

Summary:

The accused was charged with possession of marihuana, contrary to s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act. The accused alleged that the evidence of marihuana in his possession was discovered as the result of an unreasonable search and seizure, contrary to s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court accepted the accused's argument and acquitted him.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Unreasonable search and seizure - What constitutes - A police officer stopped a speeding vehicle with three occupants - Although he had no grounds to believe they had committed a drug offence, the officer asked permission to search them - Two consented - The search of one revealed only the smell of marihuana in an empty film container - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the officer was without grounds to then search the accused, who had not consented; therefore the search of the accused was unreasonable and contrary to s. 8 of the Charter of Rights - See paragraphs 8 to 9.

Civil Rights - Topic 1222

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Consent to search - A police officer stopped a speeding vehicle in which the accused was a passenger - The officer had no grounds to believe the three occupants had committed any drug offence, but asked permission to search them - Two consented - There was no evidence of what the accused replied, if anything - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the accused did not consent to the search and that a "negative response" did not constitute a consent - See paragraph 7.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Goldman (1980), 30 N.R. 433; 13 C.R.(3d) 228 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 7].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter et al. (1984), 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Therens (1983), 23 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), folld. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [paras. 5, 8-9]; sect. 24(2) [paras. 5, 9].

Counsel:

Catherine Dawson, for the Crown;

Gregory Murphy, for the accused.

This charge was heard before Neville, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, whose decision was delivered at Weyburn, Saskatchewan, on December 19, 1984.