R. v. Buhay
Encyclopedia
R. v. Buhay [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada
decision on the Charter
rights protecting against unreasonable search and seizure (section 8
) and the criteria for the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2)
. The court held that for evidence to be excluded on the Collins test
, the seriousness of the breach must be determined by looking at factors such as good faith and necessity. On the facts, marijuana found in a bus station locker was excluded from evidence because the police had insufficient reason to search it without a warrant.
At no time did anyone get a warrant to search the locker. The police officers had testified that it did not cross their mind as they didn't think a locker had any right to privacy, moreover they were doubtful there would be enough grounds for a warrant.
At trial, the judge found that the police violated section 8 of the Charter and excluded the evidence under section 24(2). The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal on the basis that the locker was under the control of the stations security and there was no unlawful search.
The Supreme Court restored the trial judge's acquittal, finding that there was a violation of section 8 and the grounds were sufficient to exclude the evidence.
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 Charter
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...
rights protecting against unreasonable search and seizure (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...
) and the criteria for the exclusion of evidence 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...
. The court held that for evidence to be excluded on the Collins test
R. v. Collins
R. v. Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 8 and was a leading case on section 24 of the Constitution Act, 1982 which allowed for the exclusion of evidence upon infringing the Charter...
, the seriousness of the breach must be determined by looking at factors such as good faith and necessity. On the facts, marijuana found in a bus station locker was excluded from evidence because the police had insufficient reason to search it without a warrant.
Background
Mr. Buhay had rented a locker in a Winnipeg bus station in which he stored a duffel bag of marijuana. The smell from the bag attracted the attention of the security guards who had a station attendant open it for them. They confirmed their suspicion of the contents of the bag, then locked it back into the locker, and called the police. When the police arrived they had the attendant open the locker again. They took the bag.At no time did anyone get a warrant to search the locker. The police officers had testified that it did not cross their mind as they didn't think a locker had any right to privacy, moreover they were doubtful there would be enough grounds for a warrant.
At trial, the judge found that the police violated section 8 of the Charter and excluded the evidence under section 24(2). The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal on the basis that the locker was under the control of the stations security and there was no unlawful search.
The Supreme Court restored the trial judge's acquittal, finding that there was a violation of section 8 and the grounds were sufficient to exclude the evidence.