R v. Tran

R v. Tran

The court held Detective Lose's sniffing of the vent on the common roof did not constitute a s.8 search because the odour was vented into common property and the officer was not on the accused's private property; alternatively the presence was authorized by permission/ostensible authority; and even if a breach occurred it was not grave, the police acted in good faith and the evidence need not be excluded under s.24.

Citation
2000 BCSC 1941
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Tom Tuong Tran
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence dismissed; evidence admitted
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter, Section 24 Charter, Expectation of Privacy, Search Warrant, Ostensible Authority, Exclusion of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Property Law Evidence Section 8 Charter Section 24 Charter Expectation of Privacy +3 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Tom Tuong Tran

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police sniffing a roof vent constituted a search under s.8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether any s.8 breach required exclusion of evidence under s.24 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether police presence on common roof was authorized or covered by ostensible authority

Ratio Decidendi

The court held Detective Lose's sniffing of the vent on the common roof did not constitute a s.8 search because the odour was vented into common property and the officer was not on the accused's private property; alternatively the presence was authorized by permission/ostensible authority; and even if a breach occurred it was not grave, the police acted in good faith and the evidence need not be excluded under s.24.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence dismissed; evidence admitted

Orders

  • The impugned evidence obtained in execution of the search warrant is admitted
  • Application to exclude under s.24 Charter denied