Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter of Rights – Section 10 of the Charter – Police – Powers – Does the common-law power to search incident to arrest extend to pre-arrest searches – If so, what circumstances must exist in order to trigger this search power – If so, how are the s. 10 Charter rights and obligations, which are triggered upon detention, impacted – What, if anything, must the detainee be told about the reason and object of the pre-arrest evidence search – Section 10 of the Charter.

A known, reliable confidential informant (the “CI”) told an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) officer that the applicant would, at a specific time and place, have a quantity of crack cocaine in his possession. The OPP officer was able to corroborate the details of the information provided by the CI. The OPP officer believed that there were reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant for possession of a controlled substance. The OPP officer contacted another police service and requested that they pull over the applicant’s taxi and arrest him for possession of a controlled substance. Acting on this instruction, the applicant’s taxi was pulled over. The officer saw a bulky item in the applicant’s jacket pocket and then the applicant pulled out three cell phones and was placed under arrest for breaching a condition of his recognizance (to not possess a cellular phone). The applicant was taken to the police station. So was the backpack that the applicant had been using as a pillow in the backseat of the taxi. A police officer searched the backpack and found 28.5 grams of crack cocaine. The trial judge conducted a voir dire and ruled that the applicant’s rights under ss. 7, 8 and 9 of the Charter were not infringed. The evidence was admissible pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter. The applicant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and two breaches of recognizance. The applicant’s conviction appeal was dismissed.