R. v. D.B.M.

R. v. D.B.M.

The search violated s.8 because the vice principals lacked the necessary reasonable grounds or articulable belief specific to the alleged breach; however under s.24(2) the evidence was not excluded because the breach was not deliberate or egregious, the search was minimally intrusive in a school context with reduced expectation of privacy, the evidence was highly reliable and essential to the Crown's case, and society's interest in adjudicating drug possession around schools outweighed exclusion. thus the seized drug evidence was admitted.

Citation
2009 NSPC 38
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: D.B.M.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Youth (possession Under Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) / Charter Application Re: Search and Exclusion of Evidence (s.8 and S.24(2)) Decision
Outcome
Evidence obtained from the search admitted under s.24(2) of the Charter; prosecution may rely on seized substance in possession charge.
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter Unreasonable Search, Section 24(2) Charter Exclusion of Evidence, School Searches and Diminished Expectation of Privacy, Possession Under Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.4(1)
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Youth Justice Search and Seizure Evidence Law Section 8 Charter Unreasonable Search Section 24(2) Charter Exclusion of Evidence School Searches and Diminished Expectation of Privacy +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

D.B.M.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Youth (possession Under Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) / Charter Application Re: Search and Exclusion of Evidence (s.8 and S.24(2)) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search by school officials violated s.8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether evidence seized should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether vice principals had reasonable grounds to search the student

Ratio Decidendi

The search violated s.8 because the vice principals lacked the necessary reasonable grounds or articulable belief specific to the alleged breach; however under s.24(2) the evidence was not excluded because the breach was not deliberate or egregious, the search was minimally intrusive in a school context with reduced expectation of privacy, the evidence was highly reliable and essential to the Crown's case, and society's interest in adjudicating drug possession around schools outweighed exclusion. thus the seized drug evidence was admitted.

Court Disposition

Evidence obtained from the search admitted under s.24(2) of the Charter; prosecution may rely on seized substance in possession charge.

Orders

  • Admission of evidence seized in the search (bag containing alleged marijuana) is permitted under s.24(2) Charter analysis
  • Publication restriction pursuant to Youth Criminal Justice Act s.110(1) remains in effect