R. v. Diamond
- Citation
- 2016 SCC 46
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 3 November 2016
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 3 November 2016
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Majority held that a visual inspection during a lawful traffic stop did not constitute a s.8 search, the knife was lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine and because it was accessible to the accused the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest, and the subsequent search incident to that arrest lawfully revealed cocaine; therefore the convictions were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Convictions for unlawful possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace and for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking upheld
02
Material facts
Parties
Scott Diamond
Appellant Counsel: Jason EdwardsHer Majesty The Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador
Respondent Counsel: Lloyd M. StricklandHer Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada
Respondent Counsel: Paul Adams; Robin FowlerAmounts and remedies
- File Number: 36,816
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a visual inspection of a vehicle during a traffic stop constitutes a s.8 search
- 02
Whether the knife was lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine
- 03
Whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for possession of a weapon
- 04
Whether the subsequent search incident to arrest that revealed cocaine was lawful
- 05
Whether evidence should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued the officer's visual inspection of his truck during a traffic stop amounted to a search and that the detention/arrest was arbitrary, so the knife and subsequently discovered cocaine should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter.
- Respondent
- Crown argued the visual inspection was not a search, the knife was plainly visible and accessible justifying seizure, the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for possession of a weapon, and the cocaine was lawfully discovered incident to that arrest; convictions should be upheld.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law; Charter s.8 analysis
Plain view doctrine permits seizure of items plainly visible during lawful observation without constituting a search
- 02
Common law; Charter s.8
Police may search incident to a lawful arrest to ensure safety and preserve evidence
- 03
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ss.9 and 24(2)
Arrest must be supported by reasonable and probable grounds and evidence issues are governed by s.24(2) exclusion analysis
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Majority held that a visual inspection during a lawful traffic stop did not constitute a s.8 search, the knife was lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine and because it was accessible to the accused the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest, and the subsequent search incident to that arrest lawfully revealed cocaine; therefore the convictions were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Two justices dissented and would have allowed the appeal, criticizing the majority's characterization of the visual inspection.
- Observations on the limits of the plain view doctrine and its interaction with protections against arbitrary detention.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.
- Appeal dismissed
- Convictions for unlawful possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace and for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking upheld
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 3 November 2016
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 3 November 2016
R. v. Diamond Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2016-11-03 Neutral citation 2016 SCC 46 Report [2016] 2 SCR 291 Case number 36816 Judges Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell On appeal from Newfoundland and Labrador Notes SCC Case Information: 36816 Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Diamond, 2016 SCC 46, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 291 Appeal heard: October 12, 2016 Judgment rendered: November 3, 2016 Docket: 36816 Between: Scott Diamond Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada Respondents Coram: Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 2) Karakatsanis J. (Wagner and Brown JJ. concurring; Gascon and Côté JJ. dissenting) R. v. Diamond, 2016 SCC 46, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 291 Scott Diamond Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada Respondents Indexed as: R. v. Diamond 2016 SCC 46 File No.: 36816. 2016: October 12; 2016: November 3. Present: Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for newfoundland and labrador Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Search and seizure — Arbitrary detention — Remedy — Exclusion of evidence — Police officer noticing knife in accused’s truck when conducting visual inspection during traffic stop — Accused arrested for possession of weapon dangerous to public peace and search incidental to arrest revealing cocaine — Majority of Court of Appeal finding that visual inspection by officer did not constitute search, that seizure of knife justified since in plain view and easily
accessible to accused, that officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest accused and that seizure of cocaine justifiable incidental to arrest — Accused’s convictions upheld. APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal (Welsh, Harrington and White JJ.A.), 2015 NLCA 60, 371 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 200, 1156 A.P.R. 200, 333 C.C.C. (3d) 61, 25 C.R. (7th) 292, 347 C.R.R. (2d) 43, [2015] N.J. No. 443 (QL), 2015 CarswellNfld 518 (WL Can.), affirming the accused’s convictions for unlawful possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace and for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking entered by Hyslop J. Appeal dismissed, Gascon and Côté JJ. dissenting. Jason Edwards, for the appellant. Lloyd M. Strickland, for the respondent Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador. Paul Adams and Robin Fowler, for the respondent Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada. The judgment of the Court was delivered by [1] Karakatsanis J. — The majority of the Court is of the view that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons of Harrington J.A., 2015 NLCA 60, 371 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 200, at paras. 22-26. Gascon and Côté JJ., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, substantially for the reasons of White J.A., at paras. 44-48. [2] The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed, Gascon and Côté JJ. dissenting. Solicitor for the appellant: Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission, St. John’s. Solicitor for the respondent Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador: Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s. Solicitor for the respondent Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada: Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Halifax.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.