R. v. Do

R. v. Do

The court found the s.24(2) threshold satisfied because the unlawful arrest and search were temporally, contextually and causally linked to the discovery of the grow operation, but on a Grant analysis admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute: police conduct, while serious and stemming from inexperience, lacked bad faith; the accused had been lawfullyInvestigatively detained and the grow operation would inevitably have been discovered by firefighters or upon lawful arrest and search (discoverability); the evidence was reliable and central to the Crown's case. Consequently the evidence was admitted and the accused was convicted of production and possession for...

Citation
2012 BCSC 411
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Van Toan Do
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial and S.24(2) Application/determination of Guilt on Indictment
Outcome
Evidence admitted under s.24(2); accused convicted on counts 1 (production) and 2 (possession for purpose of trafficking); acquitted on count 3 (theft of electricity).
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) Charter Exclusion, Investigative Detention, Unlawful Arrest and Incidental Search, Warrantless Entry and Search, Discoverability Doctrine, Possession for Purpose of Trafficking, Production of Marihuana
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Administrative Statute (fire Services Act) Section 24(2) Charter Exclusion Investigative Detention Unlawful Arrest and Incidental Search +4 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Van Toan Do

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial and S.24(2) Application/determination of Guilt on Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused may seek exclusion of evidence obtained in warrantless search of residence given lack of expectation of privacy
  2. 2 Whether evidence seized after unlawful arrest and post-arrest search was obtained in a manner that infringed Charter rights
  3. 3 Whether admission of evidence would bring administration of justice into disrepute under s.24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the s.24(2) threshold satisfied because the unlawful arrest and search were temporally, contextually and causally linked to the discovery of the grow operation, but on a Grant analysis admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute: police conduct, while serious and stemming from inexperience, lacked bad faith; the accused had been lawfullyInvestigatively detained and the grow operation would inevitably have been discovered by firefighters or upon lawful arrest and search (discoverability); the evidence was reliable and central to the Crown's case. Consequently the evidence was admitted and the accused was convicted of production and possession for...

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted under s.24(2); accused convicted on counts 1 (production) and 2 (possession for purpose of trafficking); acquitted on count 3 (theft of electricity).

Orders

  • Admission of evidence seized after detention and at residence under s.24(2)
  • Convictions entered: count 1 (production of marihuana) and count 2 (possession for purposes of trafficking)