The decision was made in connection with a suspected case of domestic violence, when police officers who arrested a man in a basement for an attack looked behind a sofa and found methamphetamine. The question for the court was whether the investigation, which led to a trafficking charge, was lawful. The case of Matthew Stairs in Oakville, Ont. All nine judges said protection against the investigation and seizure in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires a stricter standard than the one for arrest-related investigations, under common law (a body of precedents). This pattern was whether the police acted reasonably under the circumstances. The new model, upheld by five judges, is whether police had a reasonable suspicion of a security risk to anyone close to where the arrest took place. Four judges said the risk of injury must be immediate. Mr Steers was convicted of trafficking methamphetamine in court after a judge ruled the investigation was legal. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the conviction 2-1. The dissenting judge, Judge Ian Nordheimer, said that while entry into the home was legal due to emergency circumstances and the arrest was legal, the search was not legal. He proposed a higher standard, that of “reasonable necessity”, as a reason to believe that the suspect had a weapon. The lawsuit challenges BC for failing to meet climate action targets The Supreme Court upheld the 6-3 conviction, saying the investigation was legal even under the new standard. The three dissidents – Judge Andromachi Karakatsani, Judge Russell Brown and Judge Sheilah Martin – would have ruled out the evidence, saying it had been obtained illegally and that its use would have brought the judiciary into disrepute. A fourth judge, Judge Suzanne Côté, said the evidence was obtained illegally but could be used because the law was uncertain at the time of his arrest. Next time, data would be excluded. The majority said that the police have a responsibility for security that must be respected. Judges must be “alive in the instability and uncertainty of the police – the police must wait for the unexpected.” They said that this is especially true in cases of domestic violence. “For victims of domestic violence, the home is often not a safe haven,” Judges Mahmoud Jamal and Judge Michael Moldavar wrote for the majority, backed by Chief Justice Richard Wagner, Judge Malcolm Rowe and Judge Nicholas Kasirer. (It was Judge Jamal’s first written decision since entering court last summer.) “On the contrary, it is a place that shields and allows their abuse. … In cases of domestic violence, the police are not only interested in the privacy and autonomy of the person arrested. they must also be vigilant for the safety of all members of the household, including both known and potential victims. “ The dissidents, led by Judge Karakatsanis, said investigations into domestic violence could harm the victims by preventing some from reporting attacks. “Police investigations may re-victimize victims or reveal evidence of irrelevant offenses, which may discourage individuals from reporting them. This is a particular concern in domestic violence, one of the “characteristics of which is its private nature”. Judge Karakatsanis noted that, immediately after Mr. Steers’ arrest, police arrested the victim herself for drug possession. The incident started with a 911 call from a witness who reported that a male driver had repeatedly beaten his co-driver. Three police officers found the car in a house, ran the license plate and discovered that Mr. Steers was thought to have had a violent background. They knocked on the door and announced, but received no answer. Entering without a warrant, they found a woman with fresh facial injuries. Mr. Steers appeared and one officer pulled out a gun while another pulled out a teaser. The suspect entered the laundry room himself. The woman denied being beaten. Eventually, the police proceeded to arrest him. After Mr. Steers was handcuffed, a police officer visually scanned the basement. Officers did not open any lockers or doors. The case was a continuation, in a way, of one of the most controversial court rulings on the Charter, the 1997 Michael Feeney case. blood-soaked resident in the beating to death of 85-year-old Frank Boyle. The court rejected the conviction for second-degree murder 5-4 because the police officer did not have a warrant. The majority said the officer should have used a telephone to ask a judge for a warrant. Our Morning and Afternoon Newsletters are compiled by Globe editors, giving you a brief overview of the day’s most important headlines. Register today.
