R. v. Nuttall

R. v. Nuttall

The court held the accused abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in items they left in the Best Western hotel room and in items they voluntarily handed to the undercover officer for destruction; consequently there was no s.8 search or seizure and the application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 BCSC 2355
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: John Stuart Nuttall; Accused: Amanda Marie Korody
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Terrorism Offences / Voir Dire on Application to Exclude Evidence Under S.24(2) of the Charter Alleging S.8 Violations
Outcome
Application dismissed; evidence admissible
Legal Topics
Charter S.8 Search and Seizure, S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Expectation of Privacy, Abandonment Doctrine, Undercover Operations, Warrantless Search, Interception of Communications
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Police Procedure Charter S.8 Search and Seizure S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Expectation of Privacy Abandonment Doctrine +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

John Stuart Nuttall

Accused

Amanda Marie Korody

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Terrorism Offences / Voir Dire on Application to Exclude Evidence Under S.24(2) of the Charter Alleging S.8 Violations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in items handed to undercover officers
  2. 2 Whether the accused abandoned any privacy interest in items left in hotel rooms at police direction
  3. 3 Whether warrantless forensic examination of storage media and warrantless seizures violated s.8 of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the accused abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in items they left in the Best Western hotel room and in items they voluntarily handed to the undercover officer for destruction; consequently there was no s.8 search or seizure and the application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) was dismissed and the evidence is admissible.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; evidence admissible

Orders

  • Defence application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) dismissed
  • Voir dire concluded; evidence seized from hotel room and items given to undercover officers admissible at trial