V. Gordon Rose

The police conducted a warrantless perimeter search of the appellant's residence based on suspicion of marijuana cultivation.

During the search, they detected the odour of marijuana and heard electrical humming, which provided the grounds to obtain a search warrant.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the warrantless perimeter search was a trespass and violated the appellant's rights under section 8 of the Charter.

The Court further held that the evidence obtained from the subsequent warranted search must be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the police conduct was a flagrant violation of constitutional rights and its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appellant was arrested in his apartment during the execution of a search warrant for narcotics.

Upon arrest, he was read his rights but was prevented from telephoning his lawyer until the police had secured the premises, which took approximately forty minutes.

During the search, police found marijuana and related paraphernalia.

The trial judge excluded the evidence due to a violation of the right to counsel and acquitted the appellant.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the appellant's right to counsel was violated, there is no strict causal requirement under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed the Charter, but its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the good faith of the officers and the nature of the real evidence.

The appellant was stopped and searched at a border crossing by customs officials acting on a tip from the RCMP that he was attempting to import narcotics.

He was directed to an interview room, frisked, and arrested after cocaine was found on his person, but was not informed of his right to counsel until after the initial search and arrest.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant was detained within the meaning of s. 10(b) of the Charter when he was ushered into the interview room and his right to counsel was violated.

However, applying the Collins framework, the Court concluded that the evidence of the narcotics should not be excluded under s. 24(2) because it was real evidence, the officers acted in good faith relying on a prior appellate decision, and the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was dismissed.