R. v. Lising and Pires

R. v. Lising and Pires

Detective-Constable Dalstrom had objectively reasonable grounds, based on extensive electronic interception and surveillance, to believe Lising was committing possession for trafficking, therefore the warrantless arrest under s.495(1)(a) was lawful; the subsequent search of the vehicle was a lawful search incident to that arrest, conducted for a purpose related to the arrest and in a reasonable manner, so there was no s.8 Charter breach and the s.24(2) exclusion application failed; evidence upheld and application dismissed.

Citation
2000 BCSC 645
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Ronald Lising; Accused: Francisco Batista Pires
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Charter Voir Dire (s.24(2) Application to Exclude Evidence)
Outcome
Application to exclude the fruits of the vehicle search under s.24(2) dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.8 Search and Seizure, Charter Ss.7 and 9 Arbitrary Detention/arrest, Charter S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Warrantless Arrest (criminal Code S.495), Search Incident to Arrest, Wiretap Surveillance
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Law Charter S.8 Search and Seizure Charter Ss.7 and 9 Arbitrary Detention/arrest Charter S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Warrantless Arrest (criminal Code S.495) +2 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Ronald Lising

Accused

Francisco Batista Pires

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Charter Voir Dire (s.24(2) Application to Exclude Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrest of Lising was lawful under Criminal Code s.495(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the search of the vehicle was a valid search incident to arrest
  3. 3 Whether the search breached s.8 of the Charter or the stop breached ss.7 or 9

Ratio Decidendi

Detective-Constable Dalstrom had objectively reasonable grounds, based on extensive electronic interception and surveillance, to believe Lising was committing possession for trafficking, therefore the warrantless arrest under s.495(1)(a) was lawful; the subsequent search of the vehicle was a lawful search incident to that arrest, conducted for a purpose related to the arrest and in a reasonable manner, so there was no s.8 Charter breach and the s.24(2) exclusion application failed; evidence upheld and application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude the fruits of the vehicle search under s.24(2) dismissed

Orders

  • Application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) dismissed