- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,845
- Reaction score
- 129,564
IMO, it appears Ms Mallick does not understand that under the Constitution, Canadians are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy and are guaranteed not to be subjected to unreasonable search & seizure.
The officer's suspicion did not equal a crime in progress, there was no "hot pursuit" to justify any subsequent action by the officer, or to substantiate an unwarranted search of the property. There was nothing to even justify a search warrant on reasonable and probable grounds. If RW's plate number had been obtained illegally from a vehicle on private property, it would run the risk of invalidating on appeal ALL evidence used to convict. There's a legal term (can't remember, might be "probative value") that, had there been evidence leading to RW PRIOR to that "illegal" search, a court would probably rule that the value of the evidence outweighed the illegal search, but any case starting with an llegal search procedure is doomed to failure.
The officer's suspicion did not equal a crime in progress, there was no "hot pursuit" to justify any subsequent action by the officer, or to substantiate an unwarranted search of the property. There was nothing to even justify a search warrant on reasonable and probable grounds. If RW's plate number had been obtained illegally from a vehicle on private property, it would run the risk of invalidating on appeal ALL evidence used to convict. There's a legal term (can't remember, might be "probative value") that, had there been evidence leading to RW PRIOR to that "illegal" search, a court would probably rule that the value of the evidence outweighed the illegal search, but any case starting with an llegal search procedure is doomed to failure.