Doing some research tonight I ran across R. v. Sutherland (2000), 150 C.C.C. (3d) 231 (Ont. C.A.). The decision is helpful in considering information provided to a Justice of the Peace; such information should be full and candid. The Court stated:
Even if the language used in P.C. Tillsley's information is viewed as no more than ambiguous (an interpretation I consider generous to the officer), it was ambiguity in the face of a specific warning by this court that judicial officers must be able to treat the information at face value. If police officers are to be permitted to use expressions such as "proven reliable" in order to protect their sources, a justice of the peace must be able to assume with confidence that the expression bears its accepted meaning.
The reasons in Hosie called for a renewed sense of responsibility by officers seeking search warrants. What we have here, beyond the reliability issue, is a less than complete investigation, a failure to disclose the informant's criminal record and several other errors referred to earlier. I do not go so far as to find bad faith on the part of the officer, but I do find that he was flagrantly careless and showed no appreciation for the significance of an intrusion upon the privacy of a home.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
No comments:
Post a Comment