Landmark Cases
Landmark Cases: R. v. Feeney
A. Summary of Case
In 1991 while a murder investigation, police barged into the accused house when there was no answer at the door. The house was an equipment trailer and without any search warrant or permission the house was searched. For a better sight at the accused the police brought him to the front of the trailer and spotted blood stains on his shirt. The accused was asked several questions and his shirt was later seized. His fingerprints were taken and he was consulted with counsel at the police detachment. The accused, Mr. Feeney was convicted guilty of second degree murder.
B. Explanations of rights that have been violated
This is a charter case because the Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms states every citizens rights and freedoms and in this case, Mr. Feeney's rights against unreasonable search and seizure were infringed upon. Mr. Feeney was unreasonably searched, therefore this violated his guaranteed rights under section 8 which states everyone has the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, because the police did not have a search warrant while entering his house they infringed his rights by forcing themselves into the house and unlawfully detaining possessions that belonged to Mr. Feeney. Also, section 24(2) of the Charter had been taken into consideration which states any evidence received infringing any rights and freedoms listed in the Charter will be excluded. Since the police entered the accused's house wrongfully the evidence they collected from the premises should be dismissed because of the error on the police's part.
C. Analysis
It is evident that Mr. Feeney's rights were violated because during the murder investigation, the police trespassed the accused's property without any valid search warrant. Under section 8 of the Charter it clearly states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. However the police did not follow procedures and
A. Summary of Case
In 1991 while a murder investigation, police barged into the accused house when there was no answer at the door. The house was an equipment trailer and without any search warrant or permission the house was searched. For a better sight at the accused the police brought him to the front of the trailer and spotted blood stains on his shirt. The accused was asked several questions and his shirt was later seized. His fingerprints were taken and he was consulted with counsel at the police detachment. The accused, Mr. Feeney was convicted guilty of second degree murder.
B. Explanations of rights that have been violated
This is a charter case because the Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms states every citizens rights and freedoms and in this case, Mr. Feeney's rights against unreasonable search and seizure were infringed upon. Mr. Feeney was unreasonably searched, therefore this violated his guaranteed rights under section 8 which states everyone has the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, because the police did not have a search warrant while entering his house they infringed his rights by forcing themselves into the house and unlawfully detaining possessions that belonged to Mr. Feeney. Also, section 24(2) of the Charter had been taken into consideration which states any evidence received infringing any rights and freedoms listed in the Charter will be excluded. Since the police entered the accused's house wrongfully the evidence they collected from the premises should be dismissed because of the error on the police's part.
C. Analysis
It is evident that Mr. Feeney's rights were violated because during the murder investigation, the police trespassed the accused's property without any valid search warrant. Under section 8 of the Charter it clearly states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. However the police did not follow procedures and