Drug Warrant that Authorizes Police to Search a Residence “at any time” Means any time Today

In R. v. Saint, 2017 ONCA 491, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether a drug warrant (section 11, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) was invalid as it did not specify an execution date.

The function of a search warrant is to authorize police officers to enter a specified place they would otherwise have no authority to enter, in order to search for and seize specified property. Because forced entry into a private place, particularly a person’s residence, is such an extraordinary exercise of executive power, it is subject to stringent juridical control: it must be judicially authorized ex ante and is subject to judicial scrutiny ex post:

R. v. Saint, 2017 ONCA 491, at para. 6; R. v. Araujo, 2000 SCC 65, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992, at para. 29.

It is uncontroversial that a non-expiring warrant undermines the purposes for the warrant requirement: facilitating meaningful judicial pre-authorization; directing and limiting the police in the execution of the search; and allowing occupants to understand the scope of their obligation to cooperate with the search.

There is, therefore, an implied requirement that police execute a warrant within a reasonable time of its being issued. 

R. v. Coull (1986), 33 C.C.C. (3d) 186 (B.C. C.A.), at para. 12.

What, specifically, will constitute a reasonable time for the execution of the warrant may  be determined by implication.  Thus, a CDSA warrant will not have to bear an execution date in all cases.



See R. v. Saint, 2017 ONCA 491, for instance, where the CDSA warrant bore no specific execution date, but rather authorized entry “at any time”. The Court of Appeal held that execution of the warrant, by common sense implication, was limited to the date on which the warrant had issued.  Supporting this conclusion was the fact that the police affidavit setting out the basis for the search warrant (the ITO) requested entry on the same date that the warrant application was submitted and ultimately authorized.

Stuart O'Connell, O'Connell Law Group (leadersinlaw.ca).









Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more