R. v. Steeves

R. v. Steeves

Although the copy of the telewarrant left at the residence lacked a readable time and date and therefore the search engaged s.8, the breach was not serious and the officer acted in good faith; given the officer's experience and corroboration, the smell provided sufficient grounds and the marihuana seized is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 BCSC 551
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Darcy Leon Roy Steeves
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Possession for Purpose of Trafficking (controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2)) / Voir Dire Admissibility of Search
Outcome
Found s.8 Charter breach but breach was not serious; evidence admitted
Legal Topics
Telewarrant (s.487.1 Criminal Code), Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Smell as Basis for Search/arrest, Compliance With Warrant Formalities, Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2) Charter)
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Search and Seizure Charter Litigation Controlled Substances Telewarrant (s.487.1 Criminal Code) Reasonable and Probable Grounds Smell as Basis for Search/arrest Compliance With Warrant Formalities +1 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Darcy Leon Roy Steeves

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Possession for Purpose of Trafficking (controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2)) / Voir Dire Admissibility of Search

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the warrant transmitted by telecommunication complied with s.487.1 of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the smell of growing marihuana alone provided reasonable and probable grounds to obtain/execute the warrant
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of s.8 of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

Although the copy of the telewarrant left at the residence lacked a readable time and date and therefore the search engaged s.8, the breach was not serious and the officer acted in good faith; given the officer's experience and corroboration, the smell provided sufficient grounds and the marihuana seized is admissible because exclusion under s.24(2) would bring the administration of justice into greater disrepute than admission.

Court Disposition

Found s.8 Charter breach but breach was not serious; evidence admitted

Orders

  • Finding: search engaged s.8 Charter protections and was flawed as the facsimile left at the premises lacked readable time/date
  • Seized marihuana admitted into evidence at trial