Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/25

Click to flip

25 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
R v. DAVIES
1982
Differentiates b/w informer & agent.
R v. SCOTT
If informant is material witness, he can be compelled to testify; therefore, keep him away when the “transaction” occur.
R v. PIZZARDI
The crown must not have an oblique motive in not calling a witness (ie., the witness would offer evidence to the contrary).
R v. NG
1996
Established idea of informant privilege in court.
R v. COSTAIN
Need to corroborate & verify informant info as much as possible.
R v. AMATO
If the agent induces the accused to commit the act, it’s entrapment.
R. v STINCHCOMBE
Discusses disclosure; disclosure of informant information is not required (as per LEIPERT).
R v. COLLINS
A search is reasonable if:
1. authorized by law
2. the authorizing law is reasonable
3. the manner of search is reasonable
R v. PLONT
Every person has a biographical core of personal information which requires judicial pre-authorization to obtain. Such a core may include:
· Employment records
· Financial records
· Health records
· Communication records
· Academic records
Law enforcement cannot use administrative or regulatory legislation to further a criminal investigation.
FEENEY: when you have reasonable grounds to believe or a warrant exists for someone, & you know he’s in a dwelling house, you cannot enter to get him unless you have reasonable grounds to believe evidence will be destroyed or the subject is a danger to himself/someone else.
When police have reasonable grounds to believe or a warrant exists for someone, & they know he’s in a dwelling house, police cannot enter to get him unless they have reasonable grounds to believe evidence will be destroyed or the subject is a danger to himself/someone else.
R v. Debot
(1996)
HEARSAY EVIDENCE may be used to obtain a search warrant When police have confirmed the reliability of the hearsay evidence.
Gottschalk vs. Hutton
A search warrant does not give police the right to search persons found in the residence. The authority to search persons in the residence is incidental to arrest.
R v. LEIPERT
1997
Defence must show that innocence is at stake for the prosecution to be required to expose the informant – if this were applicable, the informant would be classified as an agent.
R v. PHILLIPS
Allows prosecution to stay proceedings should it not wish to reveal informant’s ID.
R v. BROYLES
Discussed statements made in custody when facilitated by law enforcement (ie., to a “jailhouse informant”); these may violate s.7 of Charter.
R v. HUNTER
Prosecution can edit informer info in sealed informations when disclosing to defence, as long as the info edited is not essential to the case.
R v. SIMON
Can use the “big fish” to catch a “small fish”.
R v. AMATO
If the agent induces the accused to commit the act, it’s entrapment.
R v. MACK
Defines entrapment; concerned with illegal acts by an agent affecting his credibility.
R v. GROSSMAN
Discusses handler credibilty; police handler was excellent, & kept notes of every conversation.
HUNTER vs. SOUTHAM
Any warrantless search is unreasonable.
R v. NICOLISI
Can do an inventory search only if authorized to search & seize.
R v. SHEA
Plain View Doctrine - you can seize something without a warrant if:
· You’re lawfully on the premises
· You’re lawfully positioned
· Something unlawful seen in plain view
R v. WILLS
Points to consider when assessing whether consent is acceptable:
Subject has to consent after being told:
· Consent is voluntary
· Subject knows he doesn’t have to consent
· Subject knows he can withdraw consent at any time
· Subject knows what will happen if anything is found
· Subject has been chartered
R v. COLORUSSO
Regulatory/administrative legislation can’t assist criminal investigation.