R. v. Paterson,(2017) SCC 15
“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,