Well to begin what is a Feeney warrant, it essentially gives police the power to enter a dwelling house to arrest or apprehend a person if they are in or believed to be in the dwelling house. On 30 October 1997, Criminal Code amendments in the form of Bill C-16 were introduced and given first reading. The amendment provided a mechanism for peace officers to obtain prior judicial authorization to enter a dwelling house for the purposes of making an arrest(Marilyn Pilon, 2000), this happened as a response to this case. So the police, during a murder investigation in 1991, entered the accused house which was an equipment trailer, without permission from Mr Feeney. When they received no answer at the door, they entered, woke Michael by touched …show more content…
his leg, ordered him to get up and took him to the front of the trailer for better lighting. The police arrested him after seeing blood on his shirt. Following a caution with respect to the right to counsel but not the right to immediate counsel, the police asked the accused a couple of questions which he answered. His shirt was seized and he was taken to the police detachment where, before Michael had consulted with counsel, further statements and the accuser’s fingerprints were taken. The police seized cash, cigarettes and shoes under a warrant obtained on the basis of the initial search of the trailer, the initial interview and the later interview at the detachment. Feeney's lawyer argued that the police had violated section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case of Michael Feeney v. Her Majesty The Queen This case prompted a big change in the arrest, search and seizures powers of police, for better or worse I’ll talk about that later. I’ll begin with saying that it’s not the ruling but the method at which the courts reached verdict. Michael Feeney was initially charged and convicted with second degree murder of Frank Boyle was an 85 year-old who was well-known in his community, in the town of Likely, B.C.(Law lessons Teachers and Student, 2013). The ruling was passed down by the British Columbia Supreme Court, and like almost anyone convicted of a crime he appealed. His appeals we’re based on the argument that the evidence was illegally obtained. He had appealed twice, the first in 1995 At the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and the second in 1997 at the Supreme Court of Canada. The first appeal was denied, but the second appeal to the Supreme Court was upheld, they agreed with the defence and overturned the rulings of the lower courts, the evidence found when the police entered the trailer couldn’t be used against Michael Feeney at trial. The police of course had a legitimate reason for entering without a warrant which was not supported before the changes made to the criminal code. Police’s defence was that they didn’t have the time to get a warrant. The judges stated that privacy rights demand that the police generally obtain prior judicial authorization of entry into a dwelling place in order to arrest a person. Although there could be exceptions to this rule, such as when police are in hot pursuit or when someone calls 911, they found these exceptions did not apply in this case. In response to R. v. Feeney, Bill C-16 established procedures allowing police to obtain a warrant authorizing entry into a private dwelling for the purposes of arrest or apprehension of suspects or accused (Marilyn Pilon, 2000). The Criminal Code was amended in 1984 to permit police to obtain a "telewarrant"(by Marvin Stern, David Albert and Martina Quail, 2007). From then on, police officers would be able to get a warrant without having to appear before a court. Technology help to provide a new way for law enforcement to take action fast in order to save lives. The integration of telewarrants in to the criminal code made catching criminals easy work. 529.5 If a peace officer believes that it would be impracticable in the circumstances to appear personally before a judge or justice to make an application for a warrant under section 529.1 or an authorization under section 529 or 529.4, the warrant or authorization may be issued on an information submitted by telephone or other means of telecommunication and, for that purpose, section 487.1 applies, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to the warrant or authorization (Justice Law Website,2014). 487.1 (1) Where a peace officer believes that an indictable offence has been committed and that it would be impracticable to appear personally before a justice to make application for a warrant in accordance with section 256 or 487, the peace officer may submit an information on oath by telephone or other means of telecommunication to a justice designated for the purpose by the chief judge of the provincial court having jurisdiction in the matter(Justice Law Website,2014). So basically the police can just ring up a judge on speed dial any time of the day and get a telewarrant in order enter a dwelling house.
So here it is the negatives and positives, to begin with in my opinion there is no negatives to this section of the criminal code. But this power could be overused or misused in some case as can other powers the police have at their disposal. Telewarrants take away the face to face aspect of retrieving the warrant; therefore the judge issuing the warrant is unable to make an assessment for himself based of the situation, but only on the ward of the officer. Also having that meeting with the officer who needs the warrant gives the judge a chance to size him up or make a judgement on whether the officer has a proper reason to require a warrant. Parliament chose “impracticable” to signal a restrictive application: telewarrants were intended for situations where a personal application would border on the impossible (Marvin Stern, David Albert and Martina Quail, 2007).
Here are a few examples in which telewarrants were used correctly and incorrectly. In Erickson the accused was charged with marijuana production, evidence of which was found before the telewarrant was issued to search the residence. In a unanimous decision, the court upheld the trial judge’s holding that the warrant was validly issued as it was impracticable for the officer to drive 30 kilometres through “rugged unorganized territory” to the nearest justice qualified to issue a
warrant. • In R. v. Nguyen, 2007 BCSC 335, the B.C. Supreme Court applying Erickson upheld a telewarrant where the officer honestly believed there was no justice available in the area of Rossland, even though no evidence was led to establish that supposition. • In R. v. Phillips, 2004 BCSC 1797, after concluding that “impracticability is a relatively low threshold to meet”, the court upheld a telewarrant where there were no justices available in Surrey and the nearest available justice was in Vancouver, a 45-minute drive away. The trend in B.C. since Erickson has been toward upholding telewarrants as standard procedure, available on the basis of simple expediency. Increasingly, a process of last resort is becoming an instrument of convenience. However, the courts are not unanimous in their lenient interpretation of impracticability. Several recent provincial court decisions have quashed telewarrants where the impracticability requirement was not met. • In R. v. Koprowski, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2940, it was not impracticable to travel about 30 minutes from Surrey to Burnaby to appear personally. Similarly, in R. v. Tran, [2006] B.C.J. No. 193, the court held that it would have been practicable for the officer to appear in person for a warrant, since he had on two prior occasions attended personally. • In R. v. Nguyen, [2006] B.C.J. No. 3040, the court cited the proposition from Tran that while inconvenient, it was not impracticable for the officer to drive from Surrey to Burnaby to appear personally. So even with these recent court decisions, there still isn’t a the proper balance between police power and personal privacy rights that guided the use of s. 487.1 and s.529.5, so that telewarrants will only be issued where in-person appearance is truly impracticable, and not just cause the officer is too lazy to meet a judge. There will always be talk about police and whether they have too much power over the people or leeway with the law. Most protect their own is what most seem to believe but police need these powers in order to protect us, that’s what people need to realize. Ultimately without these powers I’m sure more lives would have been lost then without them ever having it the pros out way the con, even if one life is spared because of this that life holds more value than all the misuse in my opinion. References • Criminal Investigation and Forensics(2013) Retrieved from: Law lessons Teachers and Student: Lesson 2 http://www.lawlessons.ca/lesson-plans/4.2.police-investigation • R. v. Feeney(1997) Retrieved from: Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1508/index.do • There's No Place Like Home Retrieved from: Human Rights in Canada: A Historical Perspective http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/143mile.asp • Telewarrant (2014) Justice Laws Websites http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-305.html#docCont • Telewarrants (2014)Justice Law Websites http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-487.1.html • COMMENTARY: Telewarrant overuse threatens right to privacy(2007) by Marvin Stern, David Albert and Martina Quail Retrieved from: lawyersweekly http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=486 • Search, Seizure, Arrest and Detention Under The Charter(2000) by Marilyn Pilon Retrieved from: Law and Government Division http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/917-e.htm • (2014) by Parliament of Canada Retrieved from: House of Commons http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1031901&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1
Officers conducting a warrantless search without suspicion of criminal activity from the probation officer. The original search conducted discovered controlled substances, but the warrant did not include Robert Johnson, only Bennet
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
Hicks is like the search of Justin Meyers home conducted by police in the fictional case in the text book. In both searches police were in the defendant’s homes and were searching for specific items, and during that search items were found that implicated the defendants in other crimes. There are several differences between the two cases. First, the severity of the crimes. Hicks’s case involved the theft of stereo equipment, while Myers case involved murder. Second, the search of Hicks home did not include a search warrant, and in Meyers case the police did have a search warrant. In Myers case, police had a lawful search warrant to search for drugs and drug paraphernalia. During that search police located a bloody rag, which was sent for testing. The results of this test revealed the blood belonged to a murder victim, implicating Myers for suspicion of murder. Although the police did have a search warrant, the warrant only listed drugs, and paraphernalia. This arises several questions. First where was the bloody rag found? Second, did the police have probable cause that Meyers was under suspicion of murder? Or was it simply a case of reasonable suspicion? In my opinion the results of the tests performed on the bloody rag found in Meyers case should not be admissible since Myers was not under suspicion of murder, and the bloody rag was not included in the lawful search warrant. The search is not considered legal, and not covered under the plain site doctrine. Myer’s fourth amendment protection against illegal search and seizure was violated by testing the bloody
Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers, the police again sought entrance to the house. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening at least one door. Once the police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper claiming it was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp ?because she had been belligerent.? Dragging Mapp upstairs, officers proceeded to search not only her room, but also her daughter?s bedroom, the kitchen, dinette, living room, and basement.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
A warrantless search voids the constitutional right of the citizen hence, all the evidence obtained will be evicted by the court of law. While the statement holds true, there are situation where a officer of the law does not require a warrant. "Plane view exception", "Consent", and "Search Incident to Lawful Arrest" are three out of the six exception to the warrant requirement (NPC, Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement). One of the case where the judge ruled out in favor of the defendant for warrantless search is the case of "Rodriguez v. Unites States." The foundation of the case was based upon the timing from when the ticket was issued for a traffic violation to when the dog was called to sniff the car (Constitution Daily, Rodriguez v. United States). While the officer claimed the delay was caused by waiting on the backup, the exception does not fall under the
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights which includes the first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These rights apply to the citizens of our great country. The Fourth Amendment covers search laws and has a significant impact on law enforcement procedures. If these procedural rights are not followed, there can be devastating consequences to the outcome of a case.
Parole is a controversial issue because its vase ways to debate the challenges and problems that will exist. It’s like a side effect to medication based on one’s effectiveness belief. In like manner, the public media allows others who aren’t immediately effected to become tertiary, and secondary victims. It is the door to open opinions. An inmate is released from a sentence given parole and then assigned a parole and probation officer. The one thing that will make probation and parole successful is the supervision of the program and rehabilitation or residential treatment center. This will support the goal to maximize the good behavior and minimize the harmful behaviors of individuals. Probation is a good program because it’s a form of rehabilitation that gives inmates elevate space to obey rules and regulations. On the contrary, probation is risky just like any new diet plan that people use to
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
As it was found out later, the arrest was the result of the false report provided by the man who claimed that Lawrence possessed weapons at his home. The report was filed by the neighbor Roger David Nance (41 years old) and he has already been accused before for the similar complaints. The above cause to enter the house, however, was not considered to be the issue in the case hearing and Nance admitted that he provided false report.
This allows people to be recorded without their consent or even knowledge of the event when they are in a situation with an expectancy of privacy. In some cases this can be helpful when trying to catch a perpetrator however, it is still a violation of privacy. Freund also claims, “a person who is approached by a police officer wearing a body-worn camera cannot readily avoid having his identity recorded”(99). So, by the time a person was to realize they were being recorded, it would be to late for them to protect their identity, even if they had nothing to do with a crime or what was intended to be
Even in this modern day, your rights are not always secured. During wartime, the government can suspend Habeas Corpus, which prevents unfair arrests and punishments. Suspending Habeas Corpus is taking your rights to a fair trial, and throwing them in the trash. As you are probably assuming, the suspension of habeas corpus has been a controversial topic. You must also be asking yourself, “why take away the people's’ rights, wasn’t the United States built on the rights of citizens?”. Some people see that suspending Habeas Corpus could be useful during a war because it allows someone to quickly be prosecuted, with only the need for probable cause, while other people see it as an unnecessary check on American citizens’ rights.