R. V. Paterson Case Analysis

Great Essays
Style of Cause and Citation:

R. v. Paterson,(2017) SCC 15

Court:
“Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) and Court of Appeal of British Columbia (British Columbia’s Court of Appeal)
Facts of the case:

Following an agreement with the appellant to affect a “no case” seizure if he surrenders three marihuana roaches. The police make a warrantless search and entry by police into the home of the appellant. Once inside, the police found a bulletproof vest, a firearm and drugs (R. v. Paterson, (2017)). They arrested the appellant and then obtained a tele-warrant to search his apartment, which led to the discovery of other firearms and drugs.

The trial judge found exigent circumstances and concluded to admit the evidence obtained by the police as a result
…show more content…
(1) Was the common law confessions rule requiring the Crown to prove the voluntariness of an accused’s statement before it can be admissible in court, applicable in a Voir dire hearing (R. v. Paterson, (2017). (2) Were there exigent circumstances in this case to make obtaining a warrant impracticable by the police before its search and seizure of the appellant’s residence (R. v. Paterson, (2017). (3) Was the failure by the police to file a report after the warrantless seizure serious enough to constitute an infringement of the appellant’s constitutional right against unreasonable search or seizure (R. v. Paterson, …show more content…
The court’s rationale was that in a Charter Voir dire hearing the question of whether the accused’s constitutional rights were infringed should be the issue to be determined (R. v. Paterson, (2017). Therefore, there is no requirement to show if the accused statements are voluntary or not.

On the second it ruled was on the issue of warrantless search and seizure. The court ruled that in this case there were no exigent circumstances to allow the search and seize evidence without obtaining a warrant (R. v. Paterson, (2017). Therefore, the evidence obtained should be excluded.

The final issue was regarding the police filing a late and incomplete report to the court for the warrant. The court did not tackle this issue as it became controversial due to its decision to exclude the evidence obtained.

The Supreme court upheld the appeal, set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused (R. v. Paterson,

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    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”.…

    • 1144 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The Exclusionary Rule

    • 1087 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Supreme Court overturned the decision concluding that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible. Furthermore, the court also added that the officers used brutal force to obtain the evidence from Mr Rochin, a violation of due process. The Court did not make the exclusionary rule relevant in all states cases, but only in those cases of extremely serious police misconduct (Forst & Dempsey, 2011, p.183). I believe that there were different approaches the police could have taken to make…

    • 1087 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    On the contrary, Sargent discovered the warrant had been rejected (Stringer, 1996). Supreme Court decided to eliminate the evidence. Exclusionary rules do not apply because of error in police record. Inevitable discovery refers to evidence would have been found without illegal act. For example, Nix v. Williams’s case showed law enforments ' massive search would have found Pamela Powers 's body without Willam 's statement.…

    • 1091 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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. We hold that this issue is not preserved and we decline to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Caldwell of conspiracy to burglarize the Alkaline Water Company. The scope of appellate review is articulated in Md. Rule 8-131(a) and provides that “[o]rdinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court . .…

    • 1873 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Therefore, once she done this it is required by prosecutors under the Constitution to make certain impeachment information available to defendants before a trial because it entitles a defendant from waiving their rights to the information in which they did not do and that the “fast track” agreement was unlawful. Therefore, the state or prosecutor behavior was unacceptable because they withheld information in order to get a guilty verdict. Unfortunately, the appellant is not raising the concerns but the concerns are being raised by the United States Court because it is a requirement under the Constitution that a prosecutor makes sure that they make all information available to a defendant before they go to trial and this was not done. Therefore, by the prosecution not doing this she felt that her constitutional rights had been violated because she had pleaded guilty to drug charges without knowing all of her entitlements. Unfortunately, when it went before the Supreme Court they found that none of her rights were violated because she voluntarily entered into a guilty plea and that the government is not…

    • 1010 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    R V N. A Case Analysis

    • 921 Words
    • 4 Pages

    ANAYLSIS OF THE PRINCIPLE AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS IN THE CASE OF R v N. A Introduction In deciding the outcome of a case the courts must have regard to the legal principles, public policies and the correlation with the legal rule. A distinction between legal principle, public policy and rule will be considered and applied in the matter in which Carmody CJ justifies his decision in R v N. 1 Facts of the Case In the Supreme Court, a pre-trial application under s 590AA was sought to exclude evidence obtained based on public policy. The grounds for this application were the result of an improper search conducted without the required reasonable suspicion on the part of K (the searching officer). Mr Callaghan, council for N, argued the forensic…

    • 921 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    However, Kinsley lost the court case because he could not prove the “subjective” intent of the officers for intentionally malicious purposes, yet instead, he argued for the “objective” context of his confinement. IN the final outcome of the case, the Supreme Court did justify Kingsley’s argument about the objective context of suspects in custody through Bell v. Wolfish 441 U.S. 520 (1979), which allows for a new standard of confinement rights as a precedent for future abuses by police officers of suspects in jail. The use of “objective standard” in police brutality would now be associated with the Bell v. Wolfish case as a new precedent for future allegations: “We conclude with respect to that question that the relevant standard is objective, not subjective” (Kingsley v. Hendrickson et al , 2015, p.5). Certainly, Kingsley lost the court case, but the Supreme…

    • 1354 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Law (1.16)(c)(2) (McKinney 2016). The fact that the firm has knowledge of Mr. Gould’s intentions to suppress evidence that he has a legal obligation to reveal or produce to the Appellate Division on his bar application is the foundation on which representation should be refused. N.Y. Jud. Law (3.4)(a)(1) (McKinney…

    • 2326 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Drug Smuggling Case Study

    • 1247 Words
    • 5 Pages

    It was found that the trial judge made a mistake in not adjourning the case to enable him to attempt to get representation. The trial judge then ensured that his trial wasn’t fair. Dietrich was given leave to appeal to have his case which could have been heard again in Victoria, although since he had already served his full sentence, the re-trial never proceeded and he was set free. Chief Justice Mason and Justice McHugh reached the following…

    • 1247 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In order for a District Court to hear a case it must have jurisdiction. If the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction it must dismiss the case. 2. The court requires not, in any case, acknowledge as genuine statements that negate matters appropriately subject to legal notice or by display. Nor is the court required to acknowledge as genuine statements that are only conclusory, outlandish reasoning’s of truth, or nonsensical derivations.…

    • 1106 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays