R.v.Feeney Supreme Court of Canada Hearing

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

The Merit case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether the Constitutional rights of Walter Fernandez were violated under the 4th Amendment when law enforcement conducted a search of his residence upon obtaining consent from his girlfriend, who was also a resident, after Fernandez was taken into custody (and had stated his objections to the search while at the scene). In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. This paper will provide a statement of the decision, based on current

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments

The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort of intrusion on seclusion in Jones v Tsige. This decision provided the foundation for determining damages under the tort. The foundation in Jones was modified by case law. This multiple case analysis will explore how an Ontario court should calculate damages, with reference to the following cases: Alberta v Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Hopkins v Kay, and Condon v Canada. Taken together, these cases indicate that a damage award in Ontario should reflect the offensiveness of the invasion of privacy and the harm it caused. These factors should be balanced against any steps taken by the defendant to rectify the breach. Ultimately, this assessment should be

The right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is associated with two types of warrants:

The Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda Warning, were derived from the 5th and 6th amendments in which they guarantee all people who are taken into arrest the right to trial, council, and to be appointed a lawyer. Although not explicitly expressed in the constitution, the Miranda rights provide the necessary precautions for self-incrimination and proper trial by providing those who have been arrested or incarcerated a brief description of the rights the individual is guaranteed to. It also provides the means for lawfully gathering information such as confessions and testimony from criminals for use in a court and trial. Often individuals who are taken into custody are not fully aware of one’s rights, especially the right to maintain silent, and this in turn can lead to information being given that may lead to the accused to be unlawfully tried and placed in jail for long periods of time.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You have asked me to summarize the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, SCR 395 and analyze whether the Law society is likely to sanction Evan Frank. Although the Rules of Professional Conduct place limitations on certain conduct to ensure professionalism, the expressive rights of lawyers must be given due respect and the likelihood of Mr. Frank’s sanction will depend on a fair balance of “expressive value” of the content in the letter, with the public’s expectation of professionalism.

There are many challenges that law enforcement agencies faces when it comes to enforcing public safety at the same time protect the rights of individuals. This paper will focus on several key topics involving the relationship between public safety and individual rights. The first topic is the statutory authority and responsibilities of government officials, security personnel, and private citizens. The next topic involves the practices or laws relating to search, seizures, and surveillance by police, corrections, private citizens, and security personnel. This paper will also compare the laws relating to the use of

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to

The accused, Erin Lee MacDonald was charged for handling a firearm in a careless manner without taking erasable precautions for the safety of others and for possessing a loaded restricted firearm without having an authorization license stating he could do so. The case was on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia and was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014. The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish and Abella JJ. was delivered by LeBel J.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at