R. v. Caslake (T.L.) (1998), 123 Man.R.(2d) 208 (SCC);
159 W.A.C. 208
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [1998] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.023
Terence Lawrence Caslake (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, the Attorney General for New Brunswick, the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Attorney General for Alberta (intervenors)
(25023)
Indexed As: R. v. Caslake (T.L.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Major and Bastarache, JJ.
January 22, 1998.
Summary:
The accused was arrested for possession of marijuana. Police conducted a warrantless inventory search of the accused’s impounded vehicle and found a quantity of cocaine. The accused was convicted of possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking. He was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment plus two years’ supervised probation. He appealed his conviction and sentence.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 107 Man.R.(2d) 24; 109 W.A.C. 24, dismissed the appeals. The accused appealed, alleging that the search of his vehicle was unreasonable and violated s. 8 of the Charter and that the evidence obtained as a result of the search was inadmissible.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Civil Rights – Topic 1214
Security of the person – Lawful or reasonable search – Searches incidental to arrest – The accused was arrested for possession of marijuana and his motor vehicle was seized – About six hours after the arrest, the police conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle for the purposes of taking an inventory of the condition and contents of the vehicle – The police found some cocaine in the vehicle – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the evidence of the cocaine was admissible – The search of the vehicle was unlawful, because it was not incidental to arrest but for a purpose unconnected to the arrest (i.e., the RCMP inventory policy) – However, the evidence was admissible, because its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute – See paragraphs 10 to 36.
Civil Rights – Topic 1524
Property – Personal property – Search and seizure by police – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 1214
].
Civil Rights – Topic 1646
Property – Search and seizure – Unreasonable search and seizure defined – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 1214
].
Civil Rights – Topic 1646
Property – Search and seizure – Unreasonable search and seizure defined – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “In order to be reasonable, searches and seizures must be authorized by law … There are three ways in which a search can fail to meet this requirement. First, the state authority conducting the search must be able to point to a specific statute or common law rule that authorizes the search. If they cannot do so, the search cannot be said to be authorized by law. Second, the search must be carried out in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements the law provided … Third, and in the same vein, the scope of the search is limited to the area and to those items for which the law has granted the authority to search.” – See paragraph 12.
Civil Rights – Topic 1650.2
Property – Search and seizure – Warrantless search and seizure – Burden of proof – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “a warrantless search is prima facie unreasonable. Hence, once the accused has demonstrated that the search was warrantless, the Crown has the burden of showing that the search was, on the balance of probabilities, reasonable” – See paragraph 11.
Civil Rights – Topic 1651
Property – Search and seizure – Warrantless search and seizure – Motor vehicles – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 1214
].
Civil Rights – Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Exclusion of evidence – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 1214
].
Criminal Law – Topic 3147
Special powers – Power of search – Search incidental to arrest – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 1214
].
Criminal Law – Topic 3147
Special powers – Power of search – Search incidental to arrest – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the common law power of search incidental to arrest – The court stated that the three main purposes of search incident to arrest are ensuring the safety of the police and public, the protection of evidence from destruction at the hands of the arrestee or others, and the discovery of evidence which can be used at the arrestee’s trial – The police must be attempting to achieve some valid purpose connected to the arrest – There are both subjective and objective aspects to this issue – Police must be able to explain why they searched – They must have some reason connected to the arrest for conducting the search and the reason must be objectively reasonable – See paragraphs 13 to 25.
Criminal Law – Topic 3152
Special powers – Power of search – Warrantless searches – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 1214
].
Police – Topic 3185
Powers – Search – Following arrest or detention – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 1214
].
Police – Topic 3186
Powers – Search – Private property – Motor vehicles – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 1214
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Garcia (1992), 72 C.C.C.(3d) 240 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Lim (No. 2) (1990), 1 C.R.R.(2d) 136 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Charlton (T.S.) (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 272 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Drapeau (A.) (1993), 38 B.C.A.C. 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Leclerc (O.) (1995), 163 N.B.R.(2d) 225; 419 A.P.R. 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Golub (D.J.) (1997), 102 O.A.C. 176; 34 O.R.(4th) 743 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Smellie (S.A.) (1994), 53 B.C.A.C. 202; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 9 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Speid (1991), 8 C.R.R.(2d) 383 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].
Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 37, refd to. [paras. 1, 40].
R. v. Arason (R.H.) and Derosier (G.L.) (1992), 21 B.C.A.C. 20; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 13, 39].
R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81, aff’g. (1996), 91 O.A.C. 3; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 195, refd to. [para. 18].
South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), 428 U.S. 364, refd to. [para. 30].
Lindley v. Rutter, [1981] Q.B. 128, refd to. [para. 46].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487 [para. 12]; sect. 494, sect. 495 [para. 13].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report 24, Search and Seizure (1984), p. 36 [para. 17].
Canada, Law Reform Commission, Working Paper 30, Police Powers – Search and Seizure in Criminal Law Enforcement (1983), p. 160 [para. 17].
Counsel:
John A. MacIver and Donald Neil MacIver, for the appellant;
David G. Frayer, Q.C., and Clyde R. Bond, for the respondent;
Michael Bernstein, for the Attorney General of Ontario;
Naurice Galarneau and Gilles Laporte, for the Attorney General of Quebec;
William D. Delaney, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;
Graham J. Sleeth, Q.C., for the intervenor, the Attorney General of New Brunswick;
Gregory J. Fitch, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia.
Solicitors of Record:
D.N. MacIver & Associates, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;
The Attorney General of Canada, for the respondent;
The Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the Attorney General for Ontario;
The Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the Attorney General of Quebec;
The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;
The Attorney General of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the Attorney General of New Brunswick;
The Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the Attorney General of British Columbia;
The Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the Attorney General of Alberta.
This appeal was heard on November 10, 1997, before Lamer, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Major and Bastarache, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On January 22, 1998, the decision of the court was delivered and the following opinions were filed:
Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 36;
Bastarache, J., concurring in the result (L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 37 to 50.
