R. v. McWhirter

R. v. McWhirter

The court held the stop was authorized by the Motor Vehicle Act, the officer had sufficient objective and subjective grounds (including information from the investigator and his own observations) to detain and deploy the drug dog, the detainees were informed of rights when detained and arrested, delay in telephone access at roadside was justified by operational and safety considerations and prompt facilitation at the detachment, and the dog indications together with established grounds supported arrests and an incidental search; accordingly no Charter breaches were established and evidence need not be excluded.

Citation
2017 BCSC 2314
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Donahugh Fredrick McWhirter; Accused: Brittany Marie Stinn
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Voir Dire on Charter Issues Arising From Traffic Stop / Ruling on Voir Dire (pre Trial)
Outcome
Charter applications dismissed; no breach of ss.7,8,9,10(a),10(b) or 11(a) established; evidence not excluded
Legal Topics
Charter S.8 Search and Seizure, Charter S.9 Arbitrary Detention, Charter S.10(a) Notification of Reasons, Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel, Traffic Stop Ruse, Sniffer Dog Deployment, Investigative Detention, Exclusion of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Administrative Law Charter S.8 Search and Seizure Charter S.9 Arbitrary Detention Charter S.10(a) Notification of Reasons Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel +4 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Donahugh Fredrick McWhirter

Accused

Brittany Marie Stinn

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Voir Dire on Charter Issues Arising From Traffic Stop / Ruling on Voir Dire (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a traffic stop used as a ruse to further a drug investigation constitutes arbitrary detention under s.9
  2. 2 Whether police must disclose the ongoing criminal investigation as the reason for detention under s.10(a)
  3. 3 Whether police breached s.10(b) by denying access to counsel at roadside

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the stop was authorized by the Motor Vehicle Act, the officer had sufficient objective and subjective grounds (including information from the investigator and his own observations) to detain and deploy the drug dog, the detainees were informed of rights when detained and arrested, delay in telephone access at roadside was justified by operational and safety considerations and prompt facilitation at the detachment, and the dog indications together with established grounds supported arrests and an incidental search; accordingly no Charter breaches were established and evidence need not be excluded.

Court Disposition

Charter applications dismissed; no breach of ss.7,8,9,10(a),10(b) or 11(a) established; evidence not excluded

Orders

  • Voir dire dismissed; evidence obtained from the vehicle search admitted subject to trial process