R. v. Lundgren & Seeber

R. v. Lundgren & Seeber

The police entry into and brief traverse of the rural driveway did not constitute a s.8 search because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the first few feet of the driveway and the vehicle's licence plate was plainly visible; the subsequent warrantless cursory search of the trailer was a lawful incident to Lundgren's lawful arrest, justified by concern for officer safety and preservation of evidence (exigent circumstances) and conducted reasonably, therefore no s.8 breach occurred and the seizure was admissible (would not be excluded under s.24(2)).

Citation
2004 BCSC 967
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Arthur Bryan Lundgren; Accused: Christine Dawn Seeber
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire at Trial
Outcome
No s.8 Charter breach found; evidence admissible
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter, Section 24(2) Charter, Implied Licence to Approach Dwelling, Search Incidental to Arrest, Exigent Circumstances, Warrantless Entry, Exclusion of Evidence
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Search and Seizure Evidence Law Section 8 Charter Section 24(2) Charter Implied Licence to Approach Dwelling Search Incidental to Arrest +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Arthur Bryan Lundgren

Accused

Christine Dawn Seeber

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police entry into the private driveway constituted a s.8 Charter search
  2. 2 Whether the warrantless search of the trailer following Lundgren's arrest breached s.8
  3. 3 Whether any Charter breach should lead to exclusion of evidence under s.24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The police entry into and brief traverse of the rural driveway did not constitute a s.8 search because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the first few feet of the driveway and the vehicle's licence plate was plainly visible; the subsequent warrantless cursory search of the trailer was a lawful incident to Lundgren's lawful arrest, justified by concern for officer safety and preservation of evidence (exigent circumstances) and conducted reasonably, therefore no s.8 breach occurred and the seizure was admissible (would not be excluded under s.24(2)).

Court Disposition

No s.8 Charter breach found; evidence admissible