R. v. Taylor (J.A.), 2015 NSSC 296

• Judge: Arnold, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: August 27, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2015 NSSC 296;(2015), 366 N.S.R.(2d) 116 (SC)

R. v. Taylor (J.A.) (2015), 366 N.S.R.(2d) 116 (SC);

    1154 A.P.R. 116

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.033

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jared Alexander Taylor

(CRH No. 430281; 2015 NSSC 296)

Indexed As: R. v. Taylor (J.A.)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Arnold, J.

October 19, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, breach of probation and six weapons offences. A search of the accused's vehicle discovered drug evidence. A subsequent search of his residence, pursuant to a warrant, uncovered further drug evidence and weapons. On a voir dire, the accused argued that the evidence obtained arose from an arbitrary detention (Charter, s. 9) and an unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8). The accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude the evidence.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the application. The police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused. There was no arbitrary detention or unreasonable search and seizure. The subsequent search of the accused's residence was lawful.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1650.3 and Police - Topic 3063 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1650.3

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Exigent circumstances - The accused was lawfully arrested without warrant for trafficking (dial-a-dope operation) when his vehicle was stopped within sight of his residence (suspected stash house) - The police had information from a confidential informant that the accused possessed a gun - A search of the accused and the vehicle turned up drug evidence, but no gun - The police secured the residence while waiting for a search warrant - There was concern that there could be persons inside the residence who had access to guns and could destroy evidence - The police accordingly did a walkthrough of the residence to clear it of any occupants (one found) - No search was conducted until the warrant was obtained - The accused argued that the warrant was invalid because the information to obtain (ITO) contained inaccurate and misleading information (i.e., warrant should not have been issued) and that the walkthrough constituted an unreasonable search and seizure (Charter, s. 8) - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the warrantless walkthrough to secure the residence, clear it of occupants for officer safety and preserve evidence from destruction was lawful and not an unreasonable search and seizure - Entry was authorized under s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act where there existed exigent circumstances making it impractical to wait until the search warrant was obtained to secure and clear the residence - The ITO contained one non-deliberate inaccuracy, which was excised - There was no basis to quash the warrant as invalid where, on the balance of the information, there was reliable evidence upon which the issuing judge could have issued a warrant - See paragraphs 55 to 113.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Police - Topic 3063 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3147

Special powers - Power of search - Search incidental to arrest or detention - [See Police - Topic 3063 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3184

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Falsehood - Misleading statements or omissions in sworn information - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1650.3 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 2067

Search and seizure - Warrantless searches - Existence of exigent circumstances - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1650.3 ].

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest and detention - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - The accused's vehicle was stopped by police - The accused was previously in possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and had a relationship with drug traffickers - Information from a confidential informant was that the accused sold marijuana and cocaine in a dial-a-dope operation, had people drive him around to make sales, and had possession of marijuana within the last week - The accused was seated in the middle row of a bench seat in a truck - The driver and other passenger were known to police - Police observed the truck stop at three locations, with pedestrians briefly going to the passenger side window - At the last stop, police observed a hand-to-hand exchange consistent with a drug purchase - As the vehicle was approaching the accused's residence, it was stopped by the police - A search of the accused and vehicle incidental to the arrest discovered drug evidence - The accused was charged with drug and weapons offences - The accused argued that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him, resulting in an arbitrary detention (Charter, s. 9) and unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8) - He sought exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that "considering the constellation of information available to the police through sources, their previous dealings with truck's occupants, their own observations of the truck's occupants that day as they went from place to place, ... combined with their familiarity with dial-a-dope operations, the police certainly had a subjective belief that [the accused] was committing an indictable offence. This was not merely a hunch ..." - The police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused - There was no arbitrary detention or unreasonable search and seizure respecting the vehicle stop - See paragraphs 1 to 52.

Police - Topic 3185

Powers - Search - Following arrest or detention - [See Police - Topic 3063 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Crocker (L.) (2009), 275 B.C.A.C. 190; 465 W.A.C. 190; 2009 BCCA 388, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Dunlop and Sylvester, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 881; 27 N.R. 153, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Morelli - see R. v. U.P.M.

R. v. U.P.M., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253; 399 N.R. 200; 346 Sask.R. 1; 477 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Morris (W.R.) (1998), 173 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 527 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Bisson (J.) et autres, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097; 173 N.R. 237; 65 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 58].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter et al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Durling (J.C.) (2006), 249 N.S.R.(2d) 229; 792 A.P.R. 229; 2006 NSCA 124, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al. (2000), 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 2000 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Vu (T.L.) (2013), 451 N.R. 199; 345 B.C.A.C. 155; 589 W.A.C. 155; 2013 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. McCormack (R.D.) (2000), 133 B.C.A.C. 44; 217 W.A.C. 44; 2000 BCCA 57, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Wills (1992), 52 O.A.C. 321; 7 O.R.(3d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Grant (D.) (2009), 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Skinner (S.D.) (2005), 237 N.S.R.(2d) 15; 754 A.P.R. 15; 2005 NSSC 246, refd to. [para. 106].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., The Law of Evidence in Canada (4th Ed. 2014), para. 2.79 [para. 42].

MacFarlane, Bruce A., Drug Offences in Canada (4th Ed. 2015), generally [para. 45].

Counsel:

Michelle James, for the provincial Crown;

Kevin C. MacDonald, for the federal Crown;

J. Patrick L. Atherton, for the accused.

This application was heard on June 29 and August 27, 2015, at Halifax, N.S., before Arnold, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on October 19, 2015.