R v Stairs

Last updated
R v Stairs
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: November 2, 2021
Judgment: April 8, 2022
Full case nameMatthew Stairs v Her Majesty The Queen
Citations 2022 SCC 11
Docket No.39416 [1]
Prior historyJudgment for Crown in the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Holding
The common law Search Incident to Arrest rule needs to be modified as it relates to searches of the home to be Charter-compliant. A search incident to arrest of an area of the home not within the physical control of the accused at the time of the arrest will only be valid at common law if:

1. The police officer conducting it reasonably suspects that there is a risk to public safety that will be addressed by the search, and

2. The search is carefully tailored to address that risk.

Contents

Court membership
Chief Justice Richard Wagner
Puisne Justices Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown, Malcolm Rowe, Sheilah Martin, Nicholas Kasirer, Mahmud Jamal
Reasons given
MajorityMoldaver and Jamal J, joined by Wagner CJ, and Rowe and Kasirer JJ
ConcurrenceCôté J
DissentKarakatsanis J, joined by Brown and Martin JJ

R v Stairs, 2022 SCC 11 is a constitutional rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court established new standards for searches of a person's home after they have been arrested. At issue in the case was whether the traditional common law power of Search Incident to Arrest, which allows police officers to engage in warrantless searches of lawfully arrested persons, was compliant with section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it related to searches of the home.

All justices agreed that the traditional standard was not compliant with section 8, and needed to be modified as it related to searches of the home to be constitutional. But the majority and minority split 5–4 on how stringent the new modified standard should be, with the majority opting for one less stringent than what the minority proposed.

Background

Section 8

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms declares:

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure

The purpose of section 8 is to prevent unjustified searches before they occur. [2] A search will be reasonable under section 8 if it is 1) authorized by law, 2) the law itself is reasonable, and 3) the search was conducted in a reasonable manner. [3] A reasonable law under section 8 is one which properly balances the privacy interests of the person with the law enforcement objectives of the state. [4]

One authority that allows searches is the common law Search Incident to Arrest (SITA) rule. The rule allows an officer to search and seize anything from a lawfully arrested person if such action would advance the objectives of the arrest, including the discovery of evidence, prevention of escape, or ensuring the safety of the officer or the arrested person. [5] The SITA rule is exceptional among section 8 compliant laws in that it allows the search of an individual on a standard lower than reasonable and probable grounds, and because it does not require prior judicial authorization (a warrant). [6] The SITA rule is reasonable, not because arrested people have a reduced expectation of privacy, but because the "need for the law enforcement authorities to gain control of things or information which outweighs the individual’s interest in privacy". [7]

There have been several cases, however, where the SITA rule has been held unreasonable as it relates to some types of searches. This occurs due to the heightened privacy interests of the accused, which renders the balance struck by the SITA rule disproportionate. These cases include the taking of bodily samples ( R v Stillman ), strip searches ( R v Golden ), penile swabs (R vSaeed ), and searches of the phone ( R v Fearon ). In each of these cases the Court modified the search incident to arrest rule to be constitutionally complaint, with differing levels of burden imposed on the state to justify the search based on the privacy interests implicated by each type of search. [8]

The Court has also repeatedly recognized the sanctity of the home, based on the principle that it as an individual's "castle", and the unique privacy interests it implicates. [9] [10] In its landmark decision in R v Feeney , the Court held that warrantless entry into the home was not permitted except under exigent circumstances. [11]

Factual background

A witness called 911 to report seeing a male driver repeatedly strike a female passenger in his vehicle. Police officers were able to track the car to a driveway of a house. They knocked on the front door, while loudly announcing their presence, but no one answered. The officers, fearing for the woman's safety, forced their way in. They saw a woman with fresh wounds to her face run up from the stairs to the basement. They then observed Matthew Stairs run past the bottom of the staircase. Stairs would barricade himself in the basement laundry room, and then be arrested shortly. After his arrest, the police conduced a visual clearance search of the basement living room area, during which they found a plastic bag containing methamphetamine in clear view. The accused was charged with possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, assault, and breach of probation. [11] [12]

In lower courts

At the Superior Court of Justice, Stairs brought an application under section 24(2) of the Charter to have the evidence of the methamphetamine excluded from the trial, arguing that it was obtained in a manner that violated his section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The trial judge dismissed the application, finding that there had been no breach of section 8. Noting that he had been lawfully arrested (the police could enter the house without a warrant because of exigent circumstances), and that the search was done to advance the objectives of the arrest. He was convicted on all charges. [11] [13]

Stairs appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, arguing that the judge should not have applied the SITA rule. A split Court upheld his conviction by a 2-1 margin. Justice Michal Fairburn, writing for the majority, held that the traditional SITA framework applied, and that it was constitutional as applied to searches of the home and therefore it did not need to be modified. Justice Ian Nordheimer dissented, stating that the home could only be searched incident to arrest if there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe there was an imminent risk to public safety. [11] [14] [15]

Holding

Justices Micheal Moldaver and Mahmud Jamal wrote for the five justice majority. The Court held that the SITA rule authorizes police officers to search an area sufficiently proximate to an arrest, the scope of which varies by context and which may encompass a home. [16] They further held that a modified version of the framework was necessary for some of those searches. In its new framework, the Court bifurcated these searches into two categories. First, searches incident to arrest of an area of the home under the physical control of the accused at the time of the arrest would continue to be subject to the old SITA framework. However, in order to search an area of the home not under the physical control of the accused at the time of the arrest, officers must meet two conditions. Namely, the officers must 1) have a reasonable suspicion that there is a safety risk to the accused, officers, or the general public that would be addressed by the search, and 2) narrowly tailor the search towards addressing that suspicion, so that the search is no more intrusive than necessary to satisfy the safety risk. [17] [18]

Applying the test to the facts of the case, the Court held that there had been no breach of Stairs' rights. [19] It was conceded that the home was sufficiently proximate to the arrest to enable its search under the SITA authority, and that the basement living room had not been under the physical control of Stairs at the time of the arrest. [20] The Court held that even though the living room search engaged the heightened threshold, the officers had nonetheless met the two conditions for such searches. Because the officers reasonably suspected that there was a safety risk which could be addressed by the search, and because the search was narrowly tailored to address that concern. With the risk being that there were other victims in the house that needed attention, and the officers having tailored their response by only performing a visual clearance search. The justices noted that the only reason the search discovered methamphetamine was because it was in plain view. [21] [22]

Dissent and concurrence

Justice Andromache Karakatsanis wrote a dissent, which was joined by two other justices. Karakatsanis J agreed with the majority that the current SITA framework needed to be modified in order to be constitutional insofar it relates to searches of the home, however she held that the majority's framework was still not stringent enough to reflect the high degree of privacy interests implicated by searches of the home. [23] Under the dissent's framework, searches of the home incident to arrest would only be valid if the police reasonably suspected that there was an imminent risk to public safety which required the search, and the search was narrowly tailored to address that suspicion. [24] [25] Karakatsanis J stated that the requirement for imminence was necessary to delineate the situations in which getting a warrant was feasible from those that required an urgent response. [23] She also rejected the distinction in the majority's opinion between spaces that were under the physical control of accused and those that were not, saying that it was unnecessary and overcomplicated the framework. [26] Applying her framework to the facts of the case, Karakatsanis J found the search unlawful, and said the evidence should've been excluded based on the seriousness of the state conduct and its impact on the accused's privacy interests. [27] [28]

Justice Suzanne Côté wrote a concurrence in which she endorsed the dissent's framework. She agreed that the basement living room search had been unlawful and breached Stairs' section 8 right against unreasonable search and seizure, but would've still admitted the derivative evidence based on the Grant test. [29] Côté J held that since the officers had been operating in good faith on what they reasonably assumed to be the correct law for such searches, the Grant factors favoured admission of the evidence in the particular circumstances of the case. [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the legal standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal and for a court's issuing of a search warrant. One definition of the standard derives from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Beck v. Ohio (1964), that probable cause exists when “at [the moment of arrest] the facts and circumstances within [the] knowledge [of the police], and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information, [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing that [a suspect] had committed or was committing an offense.”

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Search and seizure</span> Police powers

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides those in Canada with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.

Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule, is a U.S. legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence.

<i>Ngan v R</i> 2007 New Zealand Supreme Court decision

Kevin Jack Ngan v The Queen is a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, which was handed down on 13 December 2007. The decision held that evidence of a crime discovered incidental to an inventory search of a car involved in an accident was admissible in court. The court considered the scope and application of Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA), regarding the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the traditional, common-law-derived "knock and announce" rule for executing search warrants must be incorporated into the "reasonableness" analysis of whether the actual execution of the warrant is/was justified under the 4th Amendment. The high court thus ruled that the old "knock and announce" rule while not a hard requirement, was also not a dead letter.

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law-enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

Bond v United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court Fourth Amendment case that applied the ruling of Minnesota v. Dickerson to luggage, which held that police may not physically manipulate items without a warrant without violating the Fourth Amendment. The Court ruled that this satisfied the two prong test established by Katz v. United States that, (1) a subjective expectation of privacy in the area in question and (2) that the expectation is reasonable in order for the protections of the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the Court ruled that since the Defendant tried to preserve his privacy by using an opaque bag and that it is reasonable for the Defendant to believe that his bag would not be felt in an "exploratory manner" that the two prongs were satisfied.

<i>R v Kang-Brown</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Kang-Brown, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456, 2008 SCC 18, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a suspect's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer stopped him at a bus station and sniffer-dog searched his bag finding drugs in his possession.

<i>R v Patrick</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Patrick, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 579, 2009 SCC 17, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police have the right to take garbage bags placed for collection at edge of a property without warrant. In this case, the accused abandoned his privacy interest when he placed his garbage for collection at the rear of his property where it was accessible to any passing member of the public. His section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were not violated when a police officer seized bags of garbage at the rear of his property and used the contents of seized bags as evidence of criminal activity.

<i>R v AM</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v AM, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 569, 2008 SCC 19, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a student's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer sniffer-dog searched his unattended backpack in the gymnasium of his school finding drugs in his possession.

Michael Moldaver is a former Canadian judge. He was a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada from his 2011 appointment by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper until his retirement in 2022. Before his elevation to the nation's top court, he served as a judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario for over 20 years. A former criminal lawyer, Moldaver is considered an expert in both Canadian criminal law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Spencer</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on informational privacy. The Court unanimously held that internet users were entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information held by Internet service providers. And as such, police attempts to access such data could be subject to section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Fearon</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 is a leading section 8 Canadian constitutional law case, concerning the constitutionality of warrantless law enforcement searches of the contents of a cell phone incident to arrest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russell Brown (judge)</span> Canadian Supreme Court Justice (born 1965)

Russell S. Brown is a former puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He was nominated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to replace outgoing justice Marshall Rothstein and served in the role starting on August 31, 2015. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, he was a justice at the Alberta Court of Appeal, and before that a law professor at the University of Alberta. He resigned on June 12, 2023, prior to the completion of an investigation by the Canadian Judicial Council into alleged harassment.

<i>R v Jordan</i> (2016) Supreme Court of Canada case

R. v. Jordan was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which rejected the framework traditionally used to determine whether an accused was tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and replaced it with a presumptive ceiling of 18 months between the charges and the trial in a provincial court without preliminary inquiry, or 30 months in other cases.

<i>R v Zora</i> Canadian legal decision

R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14 is a case in which the Supreme Court of Canada held unanimously that the offence of breaching bail conditions under the Criminal Code requires subjective mens rea.

<i>R v Golden</i> Canadian legal decision

R v Golden, 2001 SCC 83 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on limitations to the power of police officers to perform strip searches. The Court held that the common law rule allowing police officers to perform warrantless searches incident to arrest must be limited in relation to strip searches, citing their heightened intrusiveness and impact on the Charter protected privacy interests of the accused.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 39416 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. ↑ R v Stairs, 2022 SCC 11 [Stairs SCC], at para 113.
  3. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 112.
  4. ↑ Government of Canada, Department of Justice (1999-11-09). "Charterpedia - Section 8 – Search and seizure". www.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2022-04-10. A reasonable law is one that strikes a reasonable balance between the particular state interest that is pursued by the law and privacy
  5. ↑ Government of Canada, Department of Justice (1999-11-09). "Charterpedia - Section 8 – Search and seizure". justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2022-04-10. A search incident to a lawful arrest must.... related to the reasons for the arrest such as safety of the arrestee or officer, preservation of evidence from destruction, and the discovery of evidence that can be used in the prosecution of the arrestee
  6. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 34.
  7. ↑ R v Caslake, 1998 SCR 51, at para 17.
  8. ↑ Stairs SCC at paras 42-46.
  9. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 49.
  10. ↑ Government of Canada, Department of Justice (1999-11-09). "Charterpedia - Section 8 – Search and seizure". www.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2022-04-10. Territorial privacy has its origins in the notion that "the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress"... . This has developed into a more nuanced hierarchy protecting privacy: in the home, being the place where our most intimate and private activities are most likely to take place...
  11. 1 2 3 4 Fine, Sean (2022-04-08). "Supreme Court makes it tougher for police to search homes". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
  12. ↑ Stairs SCC, at paras 11-19.
  13. ↑ Stairs SCC, at paras 21-23.
  14. ↑ Stairs SCC, at paras 24-29.
  15. ↑ "Court of Appeal split over constitutionality of warrantless search that produced methamphetamine". www.lawtimesnews.com. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
  16. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 60.
  17. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 56.
  18. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 82.
  19. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 103.
  20. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 83.
  21. ↑ Stairs SCC at paras 85 & 97.
  22. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 101.
  23. 1 2 Stairs SCC at para 125.
  24. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 126.
  25. ↑ Stairs SCC at paras 132 & 137.
  26. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 135.
  27. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 108.
  28. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 155-158.
  29. ↑ Stairs SCC at para 159 & 160.
  30. ↑ Stairs SCC at paras 162-166 & 172.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.