HMTQ v. Ly and Vong

HMTQ v. Ly and Vong

The court held the accused lacked standing to challenge the search of Unit Three under R. v. Edwards; Detective Constable Spearn had objective and subjective reasonable grounds to arrest Ly based on prior observation and information from a customer; the search of Ly was incidental to that lawful arrest and minimal; no Charter breach was found and the seized evidence is admissible.

Citation
2004 BCSC 17
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Thomas Thieu Ly; Accused: Linda Lairing Vong
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Ruling on Admissibility Under S.24(2) of the Charter
Outcome
Defence challenges dismissed; accused lack standing to challenge Unit Three; Ly's arrest and search found lawful; evidence admitted.
Legal Topics
Charter S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Standing to Challenge Search (r. V. Edwards), Warrantless Arrest, Search Incidental to Arrest, Reasonable Grounds
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Search and Seizure Charter S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Standing to Challenge Search (r. V. Edwards) Warrantless Arrest Search Incidental to Arrest +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Thomas Thieu Ly

Accused

Linda Lairing Vong

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Ruling on Admissibility Under S.24(2) of the Charter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused have standing to challenge the search of Unit Three
  2. 2 Whether Detective Constable Spearn had reasonable grounds to arrest Ly
  3. 3 Whether the search of Ly was incidental to a lawful arrest and minimal in nature

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the accused lacked standing to challenge the search of Unit Three under R. v. Edwards; Detective Constable Spearn had objective and subjective reasonable grounds to arrest Ly based on prior observation and information from a customer; the search of Ly was incidental to that lawful arrest and minimal; no Charter breach was found and the seized evidence is admissible.

Court Disposition

Defence challenges dismissed; accused lack standing to challenge Unit Three; Ly's arrest and search found lawful; evidence admitted.

Orders

  • Challenge to search of Unit Three dismissed for lack of standing
  • Ly's Charter challenge dismissed; arrest and search lawful