R. v. Millett

R. v. Millett

Constable exceeded any implied licence by approaching and passing the greenhouse structure to inspect it, thereby committing a trespass that amounted to an unreasonable search in breach of s.8; the breach was serious, not in good faith, and the resulting evidence must be excluded under s.24(2), making the search warrant invalid if those observations are removed.

Citation
2004 NSPC 57
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Daniel Lee Millett
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal (controlled Drugs and Substances Act) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence (pre Trial Admissibility Ruling)
Outcome
Police conduct constituted a s.8 Charter breach; evidence obtained as a result of the impugned observations excluded under s.24(2); search warrant would be invalid without those observations
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure, Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search), Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2) Charter), Implied Licence to Enter Property, Search Warrant Validity
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search) Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2) Charter) Implied Licence to Enter Property Search Warrant Validity

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Daniel Lee Millett

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (controlled Drugs and Substances Act) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence (pre Trial Admissibility Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police entry onto the accused's property and observations violated s.8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether evidence obtained should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter given the s.8 breach

Ratio Decidendi

Constable exceeded any implied licence by approaching and passing the greenhouse structure to inspect it, thereby committing a trespass that amounted to an unreasonable search in breach of s.8; the breach was serious, not in good faith, and the resulting evidence must be excluded under s.24(2), making the search warrant invalid if those observations are removed.

Court Disposition

Police conduct constituted a s.8 Charter breach; evidence obtained as a result of the impugned observations excluded under s.24(2); search warrant would be invalid without those observations

Orders

  • Evidence seized and the observations made by Constable Foley excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
  • Search warrant rendered invalid to the extent it relied on the excluded observations