Alomar And Bell's Case Study

Improved Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    439). The search and seizure was, therefore, unreasonable and in violation of s. 8 of the Charter. The actions of the RCMP should be considered to be an invasion of the dignity, autonomy and self-worth of Tessling. Moreover, they did not have a warrant prior to using the FLIR, which is a crucial aspect of privacy. I find the police’s act to be absolutely repulsive because it is unconstitutional as proper procedures were not followed.…

    • 1978 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Is Gun Control Good Or Bad

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The United States should not be a place where people fear for their lives and have no way of protecting themselves. For that reason, the Second amendment is in place for every citizen to have the right to bear arms whether it be to protect oneself from a tyrannical government or from criminals. Gun control is not the answer in deterring crimes, but instead infringes in all citizens right to own a gun and jeopardizes their safety if they cannot use a firearm for…

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The main issue in this case was if warrantless searches and seizures of garbage left for collection outside of the home violates the Fourth Amendment. The case, People v. Krivda, created a California state law that forbids warrantless searches of trash. Due to this state law, charges against Greenwood in the California courts were dismissed because finding probable cause to obtain a search warrant would not have been possible, had the evidence from the trash not been obtained. However, in Federal Court, this state law does not apply.…

    • 1366 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This belief, however, is disproved by evidence. If guns are made illegal to own, law-abiding citizens will then turn in their guns. However, those who wish to do harm with their guns would keep their guns illegally. Therefore, these laws not only take guns away from responsible citizens, but give those who wish to keep their guns an unfair advantage if they were to attack another person (ProCon.org). Gun control laws are ineffective and should not be in present in today’s society.…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Criminals are labeled as criminals because they do not obey laws, so making laws to limit the ownership and usage of guns would not help prevent gun-related crimes. The laws would only limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. Perfectly stated by Jeffery Miron, “Thus the classic slogan - when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns - isn’t only a word play, it is a fundamental insight into the folly of gun prohibition. Such an approach means that the bad guys are well-armed while the law-abiding citizens are not” (“Rebutting”). Miron mentioned the foolishness of gun prohibition, which one could relate to the failure of alcohol prohibition.…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Gun Control Effectiveness

    • 1667 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Why is the Gun Control in the area that have the strictest laws on gun control not working? The answer is obvious it only prevent legal sales of firearms, it can’t stop illegal sales. Although gun control can stop some petty criminals from getting their hands on a gun. It can’t stop a determined one from getting it illegally from an illegal dun dealer. By definition a criminal is someone who does not abide by the laws.…

    • 1667 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Peradventure, that the police are serving a legal warrant to pick up robbery suspect who also is a known drug dealer, because of the exclusionary rule from Mapp v. Ohio when the police arrive at the suspect address, they are not allow to search the home looking for drugs unless the warrant stipulates. Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Mapp v. Ohio complicates law enforcement with bureaucracy and suppresses simple law enforcement.…

    • 598 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Caldwell further alleges that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for the offense of conspiracy to commit burglary of the Alkaline Water Company. The State, for its part, avers that Caldwell’s argument is waived because the issue was never presented to the trial court. Caldwell acknowledges that the issue as to whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction was not raised before the trial court. Nevertheless, Caldwell asserts that we should engage in plain error review and reverse the conviction. Alternatively, Caldwell contends that review of this sufficiency claim is proper because Caldwell’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the trial court.…

    • 1873 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The police would not have access to guns because they are the one who upholds the law and the law would stat that policemen are not to be armed. If criminals have access to illegal guns and will acquire them, then the police who are lawfully unarmed will have no protection. This will cause an uneven shift in crime and punishment, throwing off the…

    • 796 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    For example, Nix v. Williams’s case showed law enforments ' massive search would have found Pamela Powers 's body without Willam 's statement. Thus, Supreme Court decided the rule does not apply even though the police Mirandize William after the…

    • 1091 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays