Ontario criminal | Charter of Rights
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Dynamic entry reasonable to preserve evidence
Accused argued that evidence obtained from search warrant should be excluded based on ITO being insufficient, warrant being executed at night and use of force in dynamic entry. Previous police handler had used informant numerous times in past on multiple drug investigations where information provided by informant had always proven reliable. ITO also indicated that informant was cautioned by police as to consequences of leading them into false investigation and warned that consideration would not be given to informant if firearm was not located. Informant did have record for dishonesty and was motivated for profit. Police did confirm identity of accused regarding his physical description and address, had prior record and was observed at that address. Officer testified that dynamic entry was required to preserve evidence of firearm sought to be found. Motion dismissed. Court found no issue with search warrant being executed at night and use of dynamic entry as it was reasonable to take such effort to preserve evidence. Police did not have to confirm specific criminal activity alleged by confidential informant and did take extensive efforts of confirming number of details from information. Court also would not have excluded evidence if breach were found as use of force was minimal and evidence reliable.
R. v. Browne (Sep. 18, 2013, Ont. S.C.J., Hainey J., File No. 12-90000137-000) 109 W.C.B. (2d) 456.
Dynamic entry reasonable to preserve evidence
Accused argued that evidence obtained from search warrant should be excluded based on ITO being insufficient, warrant being executed at night and use of force in dynamic entry. Previous police handler had used informant numerous times in past on multiple drug investigations where information provided by informant had always proven reliable. ITO also indicated that informant was cautioned by police as to consequences of leading them into false investigation and warned that consideration would not be given to informant if firearm was not located. Informant did have record for dishonesty and was motivated for profit. Police did confirm identity of accused regarding his physical description and address, had prior record and was observed at that address. Officer testified that dynamic entry was required to preserve evidence of firearm sought to be found. Motion dismissed. Court found no issue with search warrant being executed at night and use of dynamic entry as it was reasonable to take such effort to preserve evidence. Police did not have to confirm specific criminal activity alleged by confidential informant and did take extensive efforts of confirming number of details from information. Court also would not have excluded evidence if breach were found as use of force was minimal and evidence reliable.
R. v. Browne (Sep. 18, 2013, Ont. S.C.J., Hainey J., File No. 12-90000137-000) 109 W.C.B. (2d) 456.
