The appellant appealed a conviction for importing marijuana arising from a controlled delivery and a subsequent search of her apartment.
The court held that police breached s. 10(b) by questioning the appellant while detained without advising her of the right to counsel, and that later admissions obtained after formal compliance remained temporally, contextually and causally connected to the original breach.
Once those admissions were excised, the information to obtain did not justify the search warrant, rendering the apartment search contrary to s. 8.
The admissions and the seized material were characterized as conscriptive evidence and excluded under s. 24(2).
Without that evidence, the conviction could not stand and an acquittal was entered.
