R. v. Morgan

R. v. Morgan

The initial traffic stop for motor-vehicle concerns was lawful, but the subsequent detention and arrest for drug possession lacked objectively reasonable grounds because the officer's claim of detecting a 'slight' fresh marijuana odour at a late and convenient point was not credible or reliably connected to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 NSSC 206
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Carl Henry Morgan
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (charter Application)
Outcome
Application allowed; evidence excluded.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Detention and Reasonable Suspicion, Right to Counsel, Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2), Search Incident to Arrest, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2)
Source Language
english
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Criminal Procedure Search and Seizure Drug Offences Unlawful Arrest Detention and Reasonable Suspicion Right to Counsel Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2) +2 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Carl Henry Morgan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (charter Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police had reasonable suspicion to detain for drug investigation
  2. 2 Whether arrest was supported by objectively reasonable grounds
  3. 3 Whether search incident to arrest was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The initial traffic stop for motor-vehicle concerns was lawful, but the subsequent detention and arrest for drug possession lacked objectively reasonable grounds because the officer's claim of detecting a 'slight' fresh marijuana odour at a late and convenient point was not credible or reliably connected to the suitcase in the truck box; the arrest was arbitrary, the ensuing search unlawful, s.10(b) was breached, and under the Grant factors the seriousness and impact of the breaches required exclusion of the seized evidence.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; evidence excluded.

Orders

  • Evidence seized during Cpl. Kutcha’s search of Morgan’s vehicle is excluded from evidence at trial.