R. v. Slaunwhite

R. v. Slaunwhite

The warrantless entry and search were not authorized or reasonable: the officer lacked exigent grounds, the purported consent was not informed or voluntary, the s.8 Charter rights of the accused were breached, and under the Grant framework admission of the seized drugs and paraphernalia would bring the administration of justice into disrepute; therefore the s.24(2) application is granted and the evidence excluded.

Citation
2012 NSSC 342
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused: Randy Lee Slaunwhite; Accused: Erin Bridget Smith
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; Charter Application / Application Hearing (section 24(2) Charter Remedy)
Outcome
Section 24(2) application granted; evidence excluded for breach of section 8 Charter rights.
Legal Topics
Warrantless Search, Consent Search, 911 Call Exigency, Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2), Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Law Warrantless Search Consent Search 911 Call Exigency Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2) +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown

Randy Lee Slaunwhite

Accused

Erin Bridget Smith

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; Charter Application / Application Hearing (section 24(2) Charter Remedy)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the warrantless entry and search of a private residence in response to a 911 hang‑up call was authorized and reasonable under section 8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the occupants' purported consent to search was valid and waived Charter protection
  3. 3 Whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The warrantless entry and search were not authorized or reasonable: the officer lacked exigent grounds, the purported consent was not informed or voluntary, the s.8 Charter rights of the accused were breached, and under the Grant framework admission of the seized drugs and paraphernalia would bring the administration of justice into disrepute; therefore the s.24(2) application is granted and the evidence excluded.

Court Disposition

Section 24(2) application granted; evidence excluded for breach of section 8 Charter rights.

Orders

  • Seized drugs and related paraphernalia excluded from admission as evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.
  • Section 24(2) application granted.