Case Law
A Saskatchewan judge has thrown out a two-foot-long machete as evidence because a police officer failed to articulate the need for a safety search.
Exigent circumstances are more about urgency than about police convenience,’ Canada’s top court has said. In R. v. Paterson, 2017 SCC 15, the police responded to a dropped 911 call from a cellphone. A woman was crying and apparently injured. The cellphone belonged to the caller’s mother and she was contacted. The mother told police that she thought her daughter was with her boyfriend, Paterson, who lived in a nearby apartment. The mother also said he had a shotgun. The police went to the apartment building and learned that the daughter had been transported by ambulance to the hospital with unknown injuries. The police knocked several times at Paterson’s apartment and announced “police,” and the door was eventually opened.
A man who sent email messages to an undercover police officer posing as a 14-yearold girl did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the messages received by the officer.

BC’s highest court has ruled that the police may ask a detainee narrowly tailored safety questions in the course of a protective search incidental to an investigative detention.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld more than $400,000 in damages awarded to a woman because the police failed to protect her confidentiality after she provided information to them.
Police had a duty to enter an apartment to check on its occupant’s safety during a domestic abuse call.
Harbouring a suspicion of illegal activity did not render a legitimate traffic stop unlawful, Alberta’s highest court found.
The manner in which police carry out an investigative detention can make it arbitrary, Newfoundland’s highest court has ruled.

Subscription Centre

 
New Subscription
 
Already a Subscriber
 
Customer Service
 
View Digital Magazine Renew

Most Popular

Latest Events

CANSEC
Wed May 31, 2017 @ 8:00AM -
OACP 2017 ANNUAL MEETING
Sun Jun 11, 2017 @ 8:00AM -