R. v. Van Diep

R. v. Van Diep

After excising para.16.2 (misstating meter location) and para.20 (search for generic electronic appliances) and amplifying a minor error in para.15 (single meter tested), the remaining ITO provided sufficient, reasonably inferable grounds that the authorizing justice could have issued the warrant to search both buildings for the specified items (documents, wiring, tools); the affiant's errors and omissions did not amount to bad faith or material non‑disclosure that would vitiate the authorization or require exclusion under s.24(2); application dismissed.

Citation
2013 BCSC 1435
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused: Mai Van Diep
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Search Warrant / Charter Voir Dire (production and Possession for Purpose of Trafficking) / Voir Dire Application to Review Warrant Validity and to Exclude Evidence Under S.24(2)
Outcome
Application dismissed; warrant upheld
Legal Topics
Search Warrant Validity, Excision and Amplification of ITO, Section 8 Charter Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Section 24(2) Charter Exclusion of Evidence, Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure, Good Faith in Warrant Applications
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Evidence Search Warrant Validity Excision and Amplification of ITO Section 8 Charter Unreasonable Search and Seizure 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown

Mai Van Diep

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Search Warrant / Charter Voir Dire (production and Possession for Purpose of Trafficking) / Voir Dire Application to Review Warrant Validity and to Exclude Evidence Under S.24(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrant was facially or sub-facially invalid due to errors and omissions in the ITO
  2. 2 Whether excision and/or amplification of the ITO is appropriate
  3. 3 Whether the errors and omissions amounted to material non-disclosure or bad faith

Ratio Decidendi

After excising para.16.2 (misstating meter location) and para.20 (search for generic electronic appliances) and amplifying a minor error in para.15 (single meter tested), the remaining ITO provided sufficient, reasonably inferable grounds that the authorizing justice could have issued the warrant to search both buildings for the specified items (documents, wiring, tools); the affiant's errors and omissions did not amount to bad faith or material non‑disclosure that would vitiate the authorization or require exclusion under s.24(2); application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; warrant upheld

Orders

  • Paras.16.2 and 20 of the ITO excised on review
  • Paragraph 15 corrected by amplification to reflect that a single meter was tested (plural corrected to singular)