R. v. Posin

R. v. Posin

On the evidence the police reasonably believed Posin was trafficking in methamphetamine, possessed firearms and had a violent history; given that information the decision to deploy an ERT and to effect a dynamic unannounced entry with diversionary devices was justified under s.12 CDSA and exigent circumstances and did not breach s.8 of the Charter; therefore the applicant did not prove a s.8 breach on a balance of probabilities and exclusion under s.24(2) was not warranted.

Citation
2009 BCSC 413
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Regina; Accused/defendant: Mark Posin
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (application to Exclude Evidence at Trial)
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence dismissed; s.8 Charter right not established to have been breached
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Section 12 CDSA, Dynamic Entry, No‑knock/knock‑and‑announce, Exigent Circumstances, Use of Force
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Weapons Law Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Section 8 Charter Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence +5 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown/prosecution

Mark Posin

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (application to Exclude Evidence at Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the manner of executing the search warrant breached s.8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether deployment of an Emergency Response Team and dynamic entry was justified by exigent circumstances
  3. 3 Whether evidence obtained in the search should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the police reasonably believed Posin was trafficking in methamphetamine, possessed firearms and had a violent history; given that information the decision to deploy an ERT and to effect a dynamic unannounced entry with diversionary devices was justified under s.12 CDSA and exigent circumstances and did not breach s.8 of the Charter; therefore the applicant did not prove a s.8 breach on a balance of probabilities and exclusion under s.24(2) was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence dismissed; s.8 Charter right not established to have been breached

Orders

  • Application to exclude evidence under s.24(2) dismissed
  • Evidence obtained in the search admissible for trial