In Alomar and Bell’s case there is a definite infringement on section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore, the photographs of Ms. Alomar holding a handgun should be inadmissible to the trial. Including this evidence would be injustice when coming to a final verdict due to the fact that it violates section 8 of the Charter which states that “everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure”
The search of the photos was not authorized by the law because there was no consent expressed or implied by Ms. Alomar. Reason for judgment is found in paragraph 19 and quotes “Det. Colabello immediately went into the cell phone log and noted the last two or three cells in her note book. She also looked …show more content…
Alomar phone should be excluded because the law that authorized the search itself was not reasonable. During the search of the cell phone Det. Colabello should not have opened the photo of the handgun due to the fact that it was not legally authorized nor was there any legal reasoning to open the photos. Legally, officers are permitted to search and gather evidence illegally when they suspect the evidence needed will be destroyed in the time need to apply and receive a warrant. Which is known as “Hot Pursuit”. However, this is not the case when searching the cell phone because the Det. Did not have any evidence of their handgun or any reason to suspect something in her photos and therefore Det. Colabello should not have accessed Ms. Alomar’s photos. In the precedent case R. v. Macooh, the trial judge clearly states “the officer 's entry into the dwelling house in “hot pursuit” of a person suspected of a breach of summary legislation contained in a provincial enactment, as opposed to an indictable offence, was unlawful, and that the arrest of the person within the premises was therefore also unlawful.” From this statement, one can conclude that just like in the Alomar and Bell case, there was not enough legal evidence to legally obtain …show more content…
v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, 2004 SCC 52 Para Det. Calobello violated Ms. Amolar’s reasonable expectation to privacy when entering her photos on her cell phone, which at the time were not relevant to their case and causing the search be carried out in an unreasonable manner. The trial judge in the case R v. Caslake said “the police cannot rely on the fact that, objectively, a legitimate purpose for the search existed when that is not the purpose for which they searched” Just like in Alomar and Bell’s case the officer in R. v. Caslake over stepped his derestriction when searching personal property and looking further than what was reasonable without a warrant. R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51 Para 7
In summary of all arguments, the photo of Ms. Alomar in possession of a handgun was seized illegally through an illegal search which violates section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, this evidence should not be included in the trial and/or any other future prosecution as its admission would interfere with the fairness of a trial. The three main arguments being the search was not authorized by law, the law that authorized the search was not reasonable and finally, the search was not carried out in a reasonable
The search of the photos was not authorized by the law because there was no consent expressed or implied by Ms. Alomar. Reason for judgment is found in paragraph 19 and quotes “Det. Colabello immediately went into the cell phone log and noted the last two or three cells in her note book. She also looked …show more content…
Alomar phone should be excluded because the law that authorized the search itself was not reasonable. During the search of the cell phone Det. Colabello should not have opened the photo of the handgun due to the fact that it was not legally authorized nor was there any legal reasoning to open the photos. Legally, officers are permitted to search and gather evidence illegally when they suspect the evidence needed will be destroyed in the time need to apply and receive a warrant. Which is known as “Hot Pursuit”. However, this is not the case when searching the cell phone because the Det. Did not have any evidence of their handgun or any reason to suspect something in her photos and therefore Det. Colabello should not have accessed Ms. Alomar’s photos. In the precedent case R. v. Macooh, the trial judge clearly states “the officer 's entry into the dwelling house in “hot pursuit” of a person suspected of a breach of summary legislation contained in a provincial enactment, as opposed to an indictable offence, was unlawful, and that the arrest of the person within the premises was therefore also unlawful.” From this statement, one can conclude that just like in the Alomar and Bell case, there was not enough legal evidence to legally obtain …show more content…
v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, 2004 SCC 52 Para Det. Calobello violated Ms. Amolar’s reasonable expectation to privacy when entering her photos on her cell phone, which at the time were not relevant to their case and causing the search be carried out in an unreasonable manner. The trial judge in the case R v. Caslake said “the police cannot rely on the fact that, objectively, a legitimate purpose for the search existed when that is not the purpose for which they searched” Just like in Alomar and Bell’s case the officer in R. v. Caslake over stepped his derestriction when searching personal property and looking further than what was reasonable without a warrant. R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51 Para 7
In summary of all arguments, the photo of Ms. Alomar in possession of a handgun was seized illegally through an illegal search which violates section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, this evidence should not be included in the trial and/or any other future prosecution as its admission would interfere with the fairness of a trial. The three main arguments being the search was not authorized by law, the law that authorized the search was not reasonable and finally, the search was not carried out in a reasonable