Supreme Court
Decision Information
Summary: Police had a warrant to search "room #3" of a hotel on the basis of their suspicion that the Accused was running a gaming operation- Two doors with room # 3 on them - Police Searched both - In the Course of searching both rooms police were told the Accused was also renting a storage room in the hotel - Storage room was also searched - Police discovered pornographic photographs and videotapes some of which depicted minors performing sexual acts in the storage room - Police seized some of the videos as samples and returned later with another warrant to seize the rest of the evidence - Amicus curiae brought a motion before the court presenting arguments that the initial warrant granted did not extend to both of the rooms marked #3, nor to the storage room - Amicus Curiae also presented arguments that the initial warrant did not give the police authority to seize the sample videotapes. Court considered that the charges related to the sexual exploitation of young people - Significant sanctions for this type of offence under the Criminal Code - Police were not engaged in arbitrary or unauthorized conduct - Police had lawful authority to be on the premises - Most that could be said was that the police overstepped their authority by taking the sample videotapes prior to obtaining a further warrant (which they eventually did obtain) - No reasonable person would consider the admission of the video evidence as bringing the administration of justice to disrepute, while its exclusion would have that effect.
Abstract: Motion to set aside search warrants and exclude evidence obtained from searches, pursuant to s. 24 ( 2 ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Decision: Motion dismissed, video evidence admissible
Subjects: Criminal law - Search and seizure - Search warrants - Execution - Manner of execution
Criminal law - Search and seizure - Search warrants - Description of place to be searched
Criminal law - Search and seizure - Property subject to seizure