R. v. McAllister

R. v. McAllister

The initial Narcotic Control Act search warrant was supported by corroborated informant information and Detective Brown's accepted olfactory and visual observations, so the warrant was valid; however the execution manner (routine no-knock forced entry pursuant to police policy) violated s.8 because there were no particularized, case-specific grounds to dispense with knock-and-announce; notwithstanding that Charter breach the seized evidence is non-conscriptive, the breach was not serious and police acted in good faith to protect safety and evidence, so under s.24(2) the evidence is admissible.

Citation
2000 BCSC 223
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Bryan James McAllister
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Narcotic Control Act/criminal Code / Charter Application Re Search and Seizure; Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Under S.24(2)
Outcome
Charter s.8 breach found in manner of entry (no-knock policy) but evidence obtained by the search is admissible; application to exclude under s.24(2) dismissed.
Legal Topics
Search Warrant Validity, No Knock Entry/knock and Announce Rule, Section 8 Charter Unreasonable Search, Section 24(2) Charter Exclusion of Evidence, Narcotics Grow Operations, Hydro Bypass/theft
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Evidence Law Search Warrant Validity No Knock Entry/knock and Announce Rule Section 8 Charter Unreasonable Search Section 24(2) Charter Exclusion of Evidence +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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Bryan James McAllister

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Narcotic Control Act/criminal Code / Charter Application Re Search and Seizure; Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Under S.24(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the information to obtain the Narcotic Control Act search warrant was sufficient (reliability and timeliness of Crime Stoppers tip and officer's olfactory detection)
  2. 2 Whether the manner of entry (no-knock forced entry by ERT) into the dwelling was unreasonable under s.8 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the evidence seized should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The initial Narcotic Control Act search warrant was supported by corroborated informant information and Detective Brown's accepted olfactory and visual observations, so the warrant was valid; however the execution manner (routine no-knock forced entry pursuant to police policy) violated s.8 because there were no particularized, case-specific grounds to dispense with knock-and-announce; notwithstanding that Charter breach the seized evidence is non-conscriptive, the breach was not serious and police acted in good faith to protect safety and evidence, so under s.24(2) the evidence is admissible.

Court Disposition

Charter s.8 breach found in manner of entry (no-knock policy) but evidence obtained by the search is admissible; application to exclude under s.24(2) dismissed.

Orders

  • Narcotic Control Act search warrant upheld as valid
  • Application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) dismissed; evidence seized at 4524 Prince Albert Street admitted