1. R.v. Patrick est. 2009
1.1. Description:
1.1.1. Patrick was sot out to have an ecticy lab in his home, so when Patrick put his garbage out "abandoning it the police took it into their hands. Without a warrant the police searched the garbage bags and found incriminating evidence that indeed Patrick had a part in the ecticy business. With the evidednce from the garbage they had enough that they needed to obtain a warrant.
1.2. Decision of the Court:
1.2.1. The court decided against Patrick's appeal saying that Patrick had abandoned his garbage when he put it out at the road. They defined the definition of garbage as something that someone doesn't want and was ready to be collected and thrown away.
1.3. Right Challenged:
1.3.1. Section 8 of the Charter
1.3.1.1. Provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
2. R.v Tessling est. 2004
2.1. Description:
2.1.1. Police had suspected that there was criminal activity (specifically drugs, growing marijuana). The police had checked for unusual hydro activity, but nothing was irregular. The police did not have a warrant but used a device called F.L.I.R which allowed police to see the heat radiating from the house. The police later got a warrant after the use of the F.L.I.R device.
2.1.2. Tessling a total of 12 months from weapon offences. 6 for each for possession of marijuana and for the purpose of trafficking and other for drug related offences.
2.2. Decision of the Court:
2.2.1. The supreme court had decided that since it did not show any specific privacy of Tessling's private life, that using the F.L.I.R was not in violation of the right of unreasonable search and seizure.
2.3. Right Challenged:
2.3.1. Section 8 of the charter:
2.3.1.1. Provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
3. R.v Singh est. 2007
3.1. Description:
3.1.1. Was accused of second degree murder of a innocent bystander whom was killed by a stray bullet while standing in the doorway of a pub.
3.1.2. Didn't want to speak to the police/investigator and was instigating the statement from charged. Also asked multiple times for a lawyer but had not received one.
3.2. Decision of the Court:
3.2.1. The supreme court was in favour of Singh because Singh asked for a lawyer and wanted to remain silent but the police were very forceful in getting a statement.
3.3. Right Challenged:
3.3.1. The right to remain silence and the right of a lawyer.
3.3.1.1. Section 7 of the charter:
3.3.1.1.1. everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and THE RIGHT NOT BE DEPRIVED THEREOF except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
3.3.1.2. Section 10 b of the charter:
3.3.1.2.1. The right to counsel.