R. v. Jordan

R. v. Jordan

The court held that the officer trespassed on the leasehold and observations obtained thereby had to be excluded from the information to obtain; however, after exclusion the remaining corroborated information — Source A's specific tip, daytime observations of covered basement windows and the red car linked to the accused, police records of prior involvement with marijuana, and the FLIR observation of unusual heat — provided sufficient reliable information that a justice of the peace could have issued the warrant; therefore the warrant, search and seizure were properly authorized and the seized evidence stands admitted without needing to consider s.24(2).

Citation
2002 BCSC 1322
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: David Jordan
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Offences / Voir Dire on Validity of Search Warrant During Trial
Outcome
Warrant upheld; search and seizure properly authorized; seized evidence admissible
Legal Topics
Search Warrant, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Informant Reliability and Corroboration, Trespass, Standard of Review for Warrant Validity, Exclusion of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Evidence Search Warrant Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Informant Reliability and Corroboration Trespass +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

David Jordan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Offences / Voir Dire on Validity of Search Warrant During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the officer's trespass to observe the rear of the residence violated the accused's reasonable expectation of privacy and required exclusion of that information from the information to obtain
  2. 2 Whether the officer misled the issuing justice by failing to disclose the conduit for the informant and by characterizing prior convictions in a potentially misleading way
  3. 3 Whether, after excision of improperly obtained or misleading information, the remaining information was sufficient to justify issuance of the warrant

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the officer trespassed on the leasehold and observations obtained thereby had to be excluded from the information to obtain; however, after exclusion the remaining corroborated information — Source A's specific tip, daytime observations of covered basement windows and the red car linked to the accused, police records of prior involvement with marijuana, and the FLIR observation of unusual heat — provided sufficient reliable information that a justice of the peace could have issued the warrant; therefore the warrant, search and seizure were properly authorized and the seized evidence stands admitted without needing to consider s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Warrant upheld; search and seizure properly authorized; seized evidence admissible

Orders

  • Evidence and statements in the information to obtain derived from the officer's trespass excluded (information to obtain paragraphs 16(d)–16(i) excised)
  • Warrant validated on the basis of the remaining corroborated information