The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence obtained through a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act search warrant, alleging violations of s. 8 of the Charter.
The accused argued that information supporting subsequent warrants was derived from an improper earlier search and from unreliable confidential informants.
The court found the police observations of marijuana material inside an open shed were lawfully obtained and fell within the plain view doctrine, and that the accused had only a limited expectation of privacy in the shed.
Even if the disputed information were removed from the Informations to Obtain, sufficient remaining evidence supported reasonable and probable grounds for the subsequent warrants.
The court held the warrants were valid and the seized evidence admissible.
