R. v. Sasano

R. v. Sasano

No s.10(b) breach was established because the applicant did not indicate a wish to speak with counsel (said 'maybe in a bit') and had a reasonable opportunity and means to contact counsel; lawful searches incidental to arrest need not be deferred for counsel; the amended ITO and resulting warrant were sufficiently...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 BCSC 715
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Jeff Luke Rigear; Accused: Roy Makoto Sasano; Accused: Nicholas Steven George Schafer; Accused: Amy Elysia Soranno
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Pre Trial Application to Exclude Evidence Under S.24(2) of the Charter
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 10(b) Charter, Section 24(2) Charter, Search Incidental to Arrest, Search Warrants and ITO Sufficiency, Warrant Overbreadth, Reasonable Opportunity to Counsel
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Digital Forensics Section 10(b) Charter Section 24(2) Charter Search Incidental to Arrest +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Jeff Luke Rigear

Accused

Roy Makoto Sasano

Accused

Nicholas Steven George Schafer

Accused

Amy Elysia Soranno

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Pre Trial Application to Exclude Evidence Under S.24(2) of the Charter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police breached s.10(b) by failing to provide reasonable access to counsel prior to or contemporaneous with seizure of cameras/SD cards
  2. 2 Whether the seizure and subsequent search of SD cards was impermissibly affected by any s.10(b) breach
  3. 3 Whether the Information to Obtain (ITO) and resulting search warrant were deficient or overbroad

Ratio Decidendi

No s.10(b) breach was established because the applicant did not indicate a wish to speak with counsel (said 'maybe in a bit') and had a reasonable opportunity and means to contact counsel; lawful searches incidental to arrest need not be deferred for counsel; the amended ITO and resulting warrant were sufficiently specific and not overbroad, and the search was not shown to be unreasonable; therefore the application to exclude the videos under s.24(2) is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to exclude videos obtained from SD cards dismissed; videos admissible at trial