R. v. Sorensen et al., (1984) 56 A.R. 180 (QB)

JudgePurvis, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateAugust 22, 1984
Citations(1984), 56 A.R. 180 (QB)

R. v. Sorensen (1984), 56 A.R. 180 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Sorensen, Christenson, Robinson, Mire, Duheme, Bryant and Dojlidko

(No. 8403-0034-C6)

Indexed As: R. v. Sorensen et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Purvis, J.

August 22, 1984.

Summary:

The accused applied for certiorari to quash a series of search warrants and for an order for the return of the items seized.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 3051

Search warrants - Narcotic control - Police seized narcotics, inter alia, pursuant to search warrants issued under s. 443 of the Criminal Code of Canada - The charges dealt with in the search warrants did not deal with trafficking or possession of narcotics, but related to conspiracy charges - Any reference to narcotics was incidental to the conspiracy charge - On the face of each warrant in which narcotics were mentioned was the name of the specific officer to whom the warrant was issued - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the warrants were not invalid, where they were issued pursuant to s. 443 rather than s. 10(2) of the Narcotic Control Act - See paragraphs 3 to 9.

Criminal Law - Topic 3093

Search warrants - Issuance of - Reasonable grounds - What constitutes - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a justice, before issuing a search warrant, must "be satisfied not only that there is a reasonable belief that something exists in a described place that will likely afford evidence of the commission of the offence, but the grounds for belief must disclose sufficient information to justify the issuance of the search warrant" - See paragraph 21.

Criminal Law - Topic 3097

Search warrants - Issuance of - Information or application for - Contents of - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to two tests to determine whether an information sworn in support of a search warrant sufficiently described the alleged offence - The narrow test required that the statement of the offence must be sufficient to apprise persons executing the warrant with the nature of the offence - The broader test required that an information sworn in support of a search warrant must be at least as sufficient as that required in the swearing of an indictment - See paragraph 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 3098

Search warrants - Issuance of - Contents of search warrant - Description of items to be seized - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to two tests to determine whether items to be seized pursuant to a search warrant were sufficiently described in the warrant - One test required that the items be described with sufficient detail to enable the person executing the warrant to identify the objects which were sought - The stricter test required that the items sought be described with precision - See paragraphs 14 to 17.

Cases Noticed:

Re Goodbaum and The Queen (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 473 (Ont. C.A.), dist. [para. 4].

R. v. Lajoie (1983), 50 A.R. 140; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (N.W.T.S.C.), dist. [para. 4].

Royal American Shows v. The Queen ex rel. Hahn, [1975] 6 W.W.R. 571; 10 A.R. 577 (Alta. S.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Read, Ex. p. Bird Constr., [1966] 2 C.C.C. 137 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Plummer (1929), 52 C.C.C. 288 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Trottier et al., [1966] 4 C.C.C. 321 (Que. Q.B. App. Side), refd to. [para. 12].

Re Dare To Be Great Of Canada (1971) Ltd. (1971), 5 N.B.R.(2d) 861, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Jackson, 9 C.C.C.(3d) 125 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Alder et al. v. Attorney General of Alberta et al. (1977), 5 A.R. 473; 37 C.C.C.(2d) 234 (Alta. S.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 26]; sect. 24 [para. 27].

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 443 [para. 3].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, sect. 10(2) [para. 3].

Counsel:

R.H. Davidson, for the applicants;

W. Fogarty, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Purvis, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on August 22, 1984.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT