The accused brought a motion to quash a search warrant authorizing the search of his vehicle following an armed robbery investigation, arguing the supporting information to obtain the warrant contained misleading and inaccurate statements regarding the presence of a similar vehicle at the crime scene.
The court reviewed the information to obtain under the principles governing warrant review and found that certain statements regarding a red van and a backpack were misleading and should be excised.
However, even after removing those statements, sufficient remaining facts supported reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused was one of the robbers and that evidence of the offence could be located in his vehicle.
The issuing justice could therefore reasonably conclude the statutory preconditions for the warrant were met.
The court held the search was lawful and declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
