R. v. Belnavis
Encyclopedia
R. v. Belnavis, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada
decision on the right against unreasonable search and seizure under section 8
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
. The Court held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the backseat of a car.
At trial, it was held that the search was unreasonable and violated section 8 of the Charter. The evidence was excluded under section 24(2)
and the girls were acquitted. On appeal the acquittal was quashed and a new trial was ordered.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the officer violated a reasonable expectation of privacy under section 8 by searching the back seat, and if so, whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2).
On the first question, Cory found that there was no expectation to privacy as she did not own the vehicle, she did not have any control over it, nor did she ever in the past, as well she had no relationship with the driver. She did not control access to the vehicle, nor was there any subjective evidence that she had expected there to be privacy in the vehicle.
On the second issue, Cory found that the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2). An objective observer would find that the officer had reasonable and probable ground to suspect that the bags contained stolen property. Likewise, the officer had reasonable subjective belief in his grounds.
The violation would not affect trial fairness, the breach was isolated and brief and so was not serious. Consequently, the breach would not tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
La Forest began by observing that a warrantless search is presumed to be unreasonable. La Forest looked to the American Fourth Amendment
and noted that the constitutional right protected privacy, not property as was suggested by the majority. He warns of the dangers in allowing "open season" on vehicles.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
decision on the right against unreasonable search and seizure under section 8
Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This Charter right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state...
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
. The Court held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the backseat of a car.
Background
Three young women stopped speeding. The police officer noticed bags in back which was found to contain new clothes with price tags still on them. More was found in the trunk. Two of the girls gave differing stories as to who owned to bag. They were all charged with possession of stolen property.At trial, it was held that the search was unreasonable and violated section 8 of the Charter. The evidence was excluded under section 24(2)
Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated...
and the girls were acquitted. On appeal the acquittal was quashed and a new trial was ordered.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the officer violated a reasonable expectation of privacy under section 8 by searching the back seat, and if so, whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2).
Reasons of the court
Justice Cory wrote for the majority.On the first question, Cory found that there was no expectation to privacy as she did not own the vehicle, she did not have any control over it, nor did she ever in the past, as well she had no relationship with the driver. She did not control access to the vehicle, nor was there any subjective evidence that she had expected there to be privacy in the vehicle.
On the second issue, Cory found that the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2). An objective observer would find that the officer had reasonable and probable ground to suspect that the bags contained stolen property. Likewise, the officer had reasonable subjective belief in his grounds.
The violation would not affect trial fairness, the breach was isolated and brief and so was not serious. Consequently, the breach would not tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Dissent
Justice La Forest wrote the dissent.La Forest began by observing that a warrantless search is presumed to be unreasonable. La Forest looked to the American Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
and noted that the constitutional right protected privacy, not property as was suggested by the majority. He warns of the dangers in allowing "open season" on vehicles.