Scenarios Involving the Criminal Code of Canada and Case Law

Instructions For this assignment, select two of the three scenarios. Then, using the Criminal Code of Canada and case law, answer each question for that particular scenario. Be specific in your answers and give detailed explanations for your rationale. The submissions should be articulate, clear, and concise with a logical flow. Rationales should be thorough, and include everything described in the scenario requirements. Use proper spelling and grammar and use APA rules where appropriate (referencing). A title page and running head is not required but your response must be uploaded in a Word document. Scenario 1 You have entered a residence via a Section 487 Search Warrant to search for stolen property. Your judicial authorization allows you to search for specific stereo equipment, flat screen TVs with remotes, and various power tools like drills, saws, etc. After entering the premises via the search warrant, you start your search and shortly thereafter, inadvertently, find a small bag containing a white powder that you believe to be powder cocaine. Can you seize the bag of what you believe to be powder cocaine? Articulate your thought process and account for the sources where you located your information. If you believe you can seize the bag of powder, quote the Section(s) of the Criminal Code that allows you to do this? Be specific. Provide case law examples (at least two) that agree with your point of view and explain why you think they are relevant. Scenario 2 You have been seconded due to manpower shortages to assist the Skylark PS Major Crimes Unit with an ongoing homicide. The Primary Investigator has briefed you on the investigation to date and you have now been partnered with a more seasoned officer. During the briefing that the Primary Investigator provided you, he made a point of emphasizing that should you and your partner come across a pair of size 12, red, white and black Air Jordan high top basketball shoes on any of the three main suspects, that you are to seize them. The Primary Investigator further explains that the reason for this is that the Skylark PS Forensic Identification Section obtained a very good shoe print from the crime scene. Through a shoe print database, they have narrowed the shoe print down to the previously mentioned Air Jordan’s. Skylar PS FIS believe that a match may be afforded if these shoes are lawfully seized. Later in the investigation, you and your partner are tasked with arresting one of the three main suspects on unrelated outstanding warrants. After arresting the suspect and booking him into cells, the suspect is searched, and upon removing his footwear, you realize that the shoes the suspect has just taken off and placed with his personal effects are a perfect match to what the Primary Investigator provided to you. Can you lawfully seize the Nike basketball shoes? If so, why? Quote the Section(s) of the Criminal Code that allows you to do this? Be specific by articulating your thought process and accounting for the sources where you located your information. Provide case law examples (at least two) that agree with your point of view. Scenario 3 You are on patrol and stop a vehicle with two people in same (driver/passenger), just north of Skylark, Alberta. Upon speaking with the driver and the passenger, you believe they are in possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. This is based on the erratic behavior of the driver, a small amount of light coloured, crystalized shards material that resembles meth that you can see in a clear plastic baggie in the center console from your position at the driver’s door, a small pipe on the passenger floor, and conflicting stories from the driver and the passenger. Although you have limited experience in policing, you have been to college and have seen methamphetamine so you are familiar with what it looks like and how it is consumed. You decide that you have reasonable grounds to arrest both the driver and the passenger for possession of a controlled substance and do so. Can you search both the driver and passenger incident to arrest? Articulate your thought process and account for the sources where you located your information. If you believe you can search the driver and passenger, state why and what your authority is. Provide case law examples (at least two) that agree with your point of view. Can you search the vehicle and immediate area around the vehicle for evidence? State why or why not and what your authority is. Provide case law examples (at least two) that agree with your point of view. Submit your response in a Word document to your instructor in the drop box. Use the rubric below as a guide for completing this assignment. If you need an additional resource to help you with case law for your assignment, use this link: https://www.canlii.org/en/ You can either search the name or, in the "document text" line, you can put in key words and it will search cases with this concepts for you. Hope that helps. We did this in the course module: Read the following case law, which illustrates search incident to arrest. R. v. Stillman, [1997] 1 SCR 607, 1997 CanLII 384 (SCC) (Links to an external site.) In a warrantless search incidental to an arrest, the presumption of unreasonableness will be rebutted on proof that the arrest was lawful under S. 495(1) of the Criminal Code, and that the search was limited in scope to that sanctioned by the common law power of search incidental to a lawful arrest. Read the following case law. Regina v. Klimchuk, 1991 CanLII 3958 (BC CA) (Links to an external site.) R. v. Caslake speaks to officers who went back and searched a vehicle hours later. This was deemed to not be incident to arrest. Read this case law. R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 SCR 51, 1998 CanLII 838 (SCC) (Links to an external site.)