R. v. Stone

R. v. Stone

The voir dire ruling: the accused was not detained at first contact but was detained when told he had to deal with the matter before leaving; the arrest was lawful because the arresting officer had a subjective belief supported by objective and articulable facts (strong smell of recently burned marihuana, accused’s admission, observed impairment, CPIC/pending drug matter and court context) making reliance on an inference reasonable; the search was lawful as incident to that arrest; the statement was voluntary and any brief s.10(b) delay did not yield evidence, so motions to exclude were denied.

Citation
2009 NSPC 10
Parties
Crown: The Queen; Accused: Justin David Stone
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (pre Trial Evidentiary Motion)
Outcome
Motions denied
Legal Topics
Detention, Arrest Without Warrant, Search Incident to Arrest, Admissibility of Statements, Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search and Seizure), Section 9 Charter (arbitrary Detention), Section 10(b) Charter (right to Counsel), Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Weapons Offences, Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 24
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Search and Seizure Detention Arrest Without Warrant Search Incident to Arrest Admissibility of Statements +6 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

The Queen

Crown

Justin David Stone

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (pre Trial Evidentiary Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was detained from first contact
  2. 2 Whether the arrest without warrant was lawful under s.495(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for a summary offence
  3. 3 Whether the accused’s statement was voluntary and whether s.10(b) Charter was breached

Ratio Decidendi

The voir dire ruling: the accused was not detained at first contact but was detained when told he had to deal with the matter before leaving; the arrest was lawful because the arresting officer had a subjective belief supported by objective and articulable facts (strong smell of recently burned marihuana, accused’s admission, observed impairment, CPIC/pending drug matter and court context) making reliance on an inference reasonable; the search was lawful as incident to that arrest; the statement was voluntary and any brief s.10(b) delay did not yield evidence, so motions to exclude were denied.

Court Disposition

Motions denied

Orders

  • Motion to exclude the accused’s statement denied
  • Motion to exclude the results of the search of the accused’s person denied