R. v. Golden (I.V.) (2001), 279 N.R. 1 (SCC)
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: [2001] N.R. TBEd. DE.002
Ian Vincent Golden (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General for Ontario, The Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto, The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, The African Canadian Legal Clinic and The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenors)
(27547; 2001 SCC 83)
Indexed As: R. v. Golden (I.V.)
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
December 6, 2001.
Summary:
The accused was arrested for trafficking following surveillance of drug activity. Upon arrest, the officer conducted a strip search, which disclosed the existence of a plastic wrapped package of crack cocaine sticking out from the accused’s buttocks. The accused was charged with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. The accused sought to have the evidence excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, submitting that the strip search upon arrest constituted an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8.
The Ontario Court (General Division) ruled, on a voir dire, that the accused’s s. 8 Charter right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure was not infringed. The evidence was admitted and the accused was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment. The accused appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and substituted an acquittal. The common law power to search incidental to an arrest included the power to conduct a strip search, subject to defined limitations. The manner in which the search was carried out violated those limitations and resulted in an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8. Where the accused had already served his 14 month sentence and the issue of exclusion of the evidence was not dealt with in the courts below, it was unnecessary to determine whether the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2). The appropriate remedy was to enter an acquittal.
Civil Rights – Topic 1214
Security of the person – Lawful or reasonable search – Searches incidental to arrest or detention – [See both
Civil Rights – Topic 1216
].
Civil Rights – Topic 1216
Security of the person – Lawful or reasonable search – Strip searches – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law power of search incidental to arrest included the right to strip search, subject to limitations – Strip searches, which were inherently humiliating and degrading, were impermissible as a matter of routine policy – To justify a strip search, the arrest must be lawful, the search must be related to the reasons for the arrest and the police must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a strip search was necessary to discover a weapon or recover evidence – A strip search conducted in an unreasonable manner violated s. 8 – The search must be conducted at a police station unless exigent circumstances required otherwise and must be authorized by a supervisory officer – The health and safety of all persons involved must be ensured – The person conducting the search must be the same gender as the accused – The number of persons involved in the search must be as minimal as possible – Minimum force must be used – The search must be conducted privately and as quickly as possible, ensuring that the accused is not completely undressed at any one time – The search should involve visual inspection without physical contact – If visual inspection reveals a weapon or evidence in a body cavity (excluding the mouth) the accused must either remove the object himself or have it done by trained medical personnel -Finally, a record should be kept of the reasons for the search and the manner in which it was carried out – See paragraphs 44 to 79.
Civil Rights – Topic 1216
Security of the person – Lawful or reasonable search – Strip searches – Police arrested the accused in a restaurant, having reasonable and probable grounds to believe that he was trafficking in cocaine – The accused was strip searched three times – First, in a stairwell, the officer pulled down the accused’s pants and underwear upon suspicion that he had hidden drugs between his buttocks – A wrapped package protruded from his buttocks – Following a struggle, the accused was bent over a table in the restaurant, and a package containing crack cocaine was forcibly removed from between his buttocks – The public had been removed, but many officers and an employee remained – The officer used rubber gloves that employees used to scrub toilets – The Supreme Court of Canada held that a strip search did not violate the accused’s s. 8 Charter rights – However, the manner in which the search was carried out was unreasonable and violated s. 8 – There was no reason not to strip search the accused at the police station (two minute drive away) – The accused was not given an opportunity to remove his own clothing – The officer did not obtain authorization from a supervisory officer and jeopardized the accused’s health in the manner in which the search was conducted – Trained medical personnel should have been used -See paragraphs 83 to 95.
Criminal Law – Topic 3147
Special powers – Power of search – Search incidental to arrest – [See both
Civil Rights – Topic 1216
].
Police – Topic 3185
Powers – Search – Following arrest or detention – [See both
Civil Rights – Topic 1216
].
Cases Noticed:
Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205, refd to. [para. 2].
Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208, refd to. [para. 2].
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. [para. 2].
R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 22].
R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 22].
R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257, refd to. [para. 24].
Leigh v. Cole (1853), 6 Cox C.C. 329, refd to. [para. 29].
Bessell v. Wilson (1853), 17 J.P. 52 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].
Adair v. M’Garry, [1933] S.L.T. 482 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 31].
Lindley v. Rutter, [1980] 3 W.L.R. 660 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].
R. v. Naylor, [1979] Crim. L. Rev. 532, refd to. [para. 32].
United States v. Robinson (1973), 414 U.S. 218 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 41].
Gustafson v. Florida (1973), 414 U.S. 260 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 41].
Illinois v. Lafayette (1983), 462 U.S. 640 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].
Schmerber v. California (1966), 384 U.S. 757 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].
Giles v. Ackerman (1984), 746 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 43].
State v. Audley (1995), 894 P.2d 1359 (Wash. Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 43].
Swain v. Spinney (1997), 117 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 43].
Nurse v. Canada (1997), 132 F.T.R. 131 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 45].
Blouin v. Canada (1991), 51 F.T.R. 194 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 45].
Gottschalk v. Hutton (1921), 36 C.C.C. 298 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].
R. v. McDonald; R. v. Hunter (1932), 59 C.C.C. 56 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].
Yakimishyn v. Bileski (1946), 86 C.C.C. 179 (Man. K.B.), refd to. [para. 46].
R. v. Brezack (1949), 96 C.C.C. 97 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].
Laporte and R., Re (1972), 8 C.C.C.(2d) 343 (Que. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].
Reynen v. Antonenko (1975), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 342 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].
R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 51].
R. v. Monney (I.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 652; 237 N.R. 157; 119 O.A.C. 272, refd to. [para. 51].
R. v. Jacques (J.R.) and Mitchell (M.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 312; 202 N.R. 49; 180 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 458 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 51].
R. v. Morrison (1987), 20 O.A.C. 230; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 437 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].
R. v. Ferguson (1990), 41 O.A.C. 149; 1 C.R.(4th) 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].
R. v. Flintoff (P.) (1998), 111 O.A.C. 305; 16 C.R.(5th) 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].
R. v. Stott, [1997] O.J. No. 5449 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 58].
R. v. K.D.S. (1990), 65 Man.R.(2d) 301 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].
R. v. Miller, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1613 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 58].
R. v. King, [1999] O.J. No. 565 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 58].
R. v. Kalin, [1987] B.C.J. No. 2580 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].
Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 64].
Hill v. Church of Scientology and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 64].
R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 1; 50 O.A.C. 125, refd to. [para. 64].
R. v. Pan (R.W.) (2001), 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 64].
R. v. Christopher, [1994] O.J. No. 3120 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 68].
R. v. Toulouse, [1994] O.J. No. 2746 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 74].
R. v. Coulter, [2000] O.J. No. 3452 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 75].
R. v. Garcia-Guiterrez (1991), 5 C.R.(4th) 1 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].
R. v. M.R.M., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393; 233 N.R. 1; 171 N.S.R.(2d) 125; 519 A.P.R. 125, refd to. [para. 99].
R. v. Lim (No. 2) (1990), 1 C.R.R.(2d) 136 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 104].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8, sect. 24 [para. 14].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Canada, Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, The Prison for Women in Kingston (1996), pp. 86 to 89 [para. 68].
Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report on Recodifying Criminal Procedure (1991), vol. 1, p. 46 [para. 62].
Canada, Law Reform Commission, Working Paper No. 30, Police Powers – Search and Seizure in Criminal Law Enforcement (1983), pp. 20 [para. 44]; 48 [para. 28].
Canada, Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples, Bridging the Cultural Divide, A Report on Aboriginal People and Criminal Justice in Canada (1996), pp. 33 to 39 [para. 61].
Canada, Task Force on the Criminal Justice System and its Impact on the Indian and Métis People of Alberta, Justice on Trial: Report of the Task Force on the Criminal Justice System and its Impact on the Indian and Métis People of Alberta (1991), vol. 2, pp. 2.48 to 2.50 [para. 61].
Cohen, Stanley A., Search Incident to Arrest (1989-90), 32 Crim. L.Q. 366 [para. 110].
Cohen, Stanley A., Search Incident to Arrest: How Broad an Exception to the Warrant Requirement? (1988), 63 C.R.(3d) 182, p. 184 [para. 62].
Corpus Juris (1916), vol. 5, p. 434 [para. 39].
Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 11, para. 121 [para. 33].
LaFave, Wayne R., Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (3rd Ed. 1996), vol. 3, pp. 132, 133 [para. 40].
Lyons, Jeffrey S., Toronto Police Services Board Review, Search of Persons Policy – The Search of Persons – A Position Paper (1999), generally [para. 68].
Manitoba, Public Inquiry into the Administration of Justice and Aboriginal People, Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, The Justice System and Aboriginal People (1991), vol. 1, p. 107 [para. 61].
Newman, Dwight, Stripping Matters to Their Core: Intrusive Searches of the Person in Canadian Law (1999), 4 Can. Crim. L.R. 85, p. 94 [para. 62].
Ontario, Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System, Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (1995), generally [para. 61].
Shuldiner, Paul R., Visual Rape: A Look at the Dubious Legality of Strip Searches (1979), 13 J. Marshall L. Rev. 273, generally [para. 68].
Stuart, Don, Charter Justice in Canadian Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 2001), pp. 206, 207 [para. 62].
Toronto Police Service, Policy and Procedures Manual: Search of Persons (July 1999), p. 3 [para. 25].
Counsel:
David M. Tanovich, for the appellant;
J.W. Leising and Morris Pistyner, for the respondent;
Michael Bernstein, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario;
Kent Roach and Kimberley R. Murray, for the intervenor, Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto;
David Migicovsky and Lynda Bordeleau, for the intervenor, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police;
Donald McLeod and Julian K. Roy, for the intervenor, African Canadian Legal Clinic;
Frank Addario and Jonathan Dawe, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Solicitors of Record:
Pinkofsky Lockyer, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;
Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario;
Aboriginal Legal Services Clinic of Toronto Inc., Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Aboriginal Legal Services Clinic;
Perley-Robertson, Hill & MacDougall, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Association of Police Chiefs;
African Canadian Legal Clinic, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, African Canadian Legal Clinic;
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
This appeal was heard on February 15, 2001, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On December 6, 2001, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
Iacobucci and Arbour, JJ. (Major, Binnie and LeBel, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 98;
Bastarache, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., and Gonthier, J., concurring), dissenting – see paragraphs 99 to 119;
L’Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting – see paragraph 120.
