Case brief r v hufsky

The police arrested him after seeing blood on his shirt. The arresting officer did not believe he had reasonable grounds to arrest prior to the forcible entry. Opinion of the Court[ edit ] Chief Justice Lamer, for the majority, found that the "public interest" component violated the accused right not to be denied reasonable bail under section 11 e of the Charter and could not be saved under section 1.

The law permitting warrantless arrests in a dwelling house is reasonable in certain circumstances. At the end of the trial the judge issued its charge to the jury without mention of any issue of credibility. They also lay out a test for the admission of evidence obtained under a Charter breach, per s.

Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

The wife answered by claiming that she owed no duty to the girls and if she did her actions were not a proximate cause of their injuries.

Background[ edit ] Decision maker Maximo Morales was being investigated in his participation in a cocaine importation ring in Canada. Search and seizure -- Police looking for suspect in serious crime -- Police entering home uninvited and without warrant -- Whether accused's privacy interest violated -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.

The appeal should be allowed. Procedures that are taken incidental to and following an unlawful arrest and which impinge on the arrestee's reasonable expectation of privacy breach s.

There are exceptions with respect to the unreasonableness of warrantless searches for things. Whether these exigent circumstances exist is a finding of fact for the trial judge.

There is a greater urgency to investigate quickly in a case of violence. Substantial agreement was expressed with the reasons of Lambert J. It would be artificial to distinguish the constitutionality of the second search from that of the initial entry into the trailer.

J.S. and M.S. v. R.T.H

A neighbor sexually abused two young girls and admitted to the abuse. An objective standard cannot be exclusively relied on because its addition to the requirements for valid arrest at common law did not displace the subjective requirement.

Here, however, the arrest was unlawful and involved a variety of Charter breaches.

R v Storrey

Here, the trial judge and the Court of Appeal were of the view that a serious danger existed that evidence would have been destroyed had the police not immediately entered the trailer to arrest the accused. The issue of the appeal was whether "the erroneous recharge, viewed in the context of the charge as a whole and the short time that elapsed between the main charge and the recharge, could be said to have left the jury with any doubt that if they had a reasonable doubt they must acquit.

At issue here are whether the police violated the Charter right to be secure from unreasonable search or seizure s. A genuine fear that evidence of the crime will be lost can constitute the necessary exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry. Here, the trial judge ruled that before the officers entered the trailer and arrested the accused there existed reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused was the culprit.

One of the indicia of seriousness is whether the violations were undertaken in good faith. The existence of reasonable and probable grounds is a legal standard and subject to interpretation and at its core a "common-sense" concept which should incorporate the experience of the officer.

The requirement that a person be informed of his or her s. The delay here was minimal. The release was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Similarly, fingerprinting as an incident of a legal arrest does not violate the Charter.

Asking him to keep his hands in front of him likely was not sufficient in and of itself, but a holistic look, including the two plainclothes officers taking up tactical positions, would lead a reasonable person to conclude they were being detained. There are three factors which must be analyzed: At trial before a judge and jury the defence argued that she was not credible.

These police actions violated the accused's s. On balance, they find that the admission was acceptable, although it was a close ruling. Consequently, the search and seizure under the warrant also violated s.

Fingerprinting as an incident to a lawful arrest has been held not to violate the Charter. On the other hand if you in fact believe the complainant totally, then he is guilty as charged.

R v Storrey

By seeking to confirm the reasonable belief they held, the police are able to avoid using the more intrusive procedure an arrest by substituting the less intrusive procedure first the search.

No notice of purpose was given prior to entry. The trial court entered summary judgment on behalf of the Defendants. Privacy rights under the Charter demand that the police, in general, obtain prior judicial authorization of entry into the dwelling house in order to arrest the person.

The accused was not given adequate opportunity to secure counsel. The question of whether, objectively speaking, reasonable and probable grounds to arrest existed prior to the entry into the trailer is open to review by this Court.Ohio, U.S. 1 Case Brief of Terry v. Ohio U.S.

1 October 4, Facts At approximately in the afternoon, while patrolling a downtown beat in plain clothes, Detective McFadden observed two men (later identified as Terry and Chilton) standing on a street corner.

CanLII Connects was created to make it faster and easier for legal professionals and the public to access high-quality legal commentary on Canadian court decisions. Michelle Vasconcelos R. v. Hufsky- Investigation R.

v. Hufsky On January 14,The appellant (Werner Hufsky) was randomly spot-checked by a police officer while driving on the highway. Sections 8 & 9 were violated in this case.

Section 8 states "the right to be secure against unreasonable search. We build the fastest, most acclaimed legal information products.

With over twenty years of experience managing and publishing legal information, Lexum provides online solutions to producers and users of document collections from all industries. Facts -on January 14, accused charged with refusing to comply with a demand by police officer to provide a breath sample for analysis is a roadside screening device.

Republic of Austria v. Altmann FACTS: In it evidence was discovered that certain works in the Austrian Gallery archives in Vienna, Austria had not been obtained from their rightful owners.

Case brief r v hufsky
Rated 4/5 based on 90 review