Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
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, its 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 hes 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 hes 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 informants 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, its 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:
· Youre lawfully on the premises · Youre 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 doesnt 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 cant assist criminal investigation.
|