CRIM 2652 Lecture Notes - Lecture 15: Exigent Circumstance, Multiple Choice, Luka Magnotta

23 views2 pages
20 Jan 2016

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Multiple choice and essay
4 essay questions (1 essay book)
Domestic Violence, Police Accountability, Sewell Reading, and Gri$ths
Evidence Search and Seizure
Slide 4
Lays out the conditions for the police power of search and seizure
Police o$cers cannot go around doing perimeter searches unless they have a
oException to this rule is when the o$cer can demonstrate exigent
Police o$cers can now have warrants printed out in their cars
Man was in trailer, police forced their ways in, was ordered to get up and
accompany him to the front of the trailer, they found blood on shirt, and got
arrested for murder. He got cautioned about his rights. The question was: did
the police have the right to enter the house legally, if so, was the evidence
admissible or not?
oThe arrest was not plausible because the police did not have
reasonable grounds to meet any of those 4 criteria, hence the arrest
was illegal
Reasonable test: any person who plays the role of a police, believes there is
reasonable grounds to proceed with an arrest
Luka Magnotta case: defense tried using the insanity plea. Luka Magnotta
actually got convicted. His defense team failed because he had criminal
liability. The state does not have to prove he is a reasonable person; they just
have to prove that he had the intent to commit a crime.
Standard of rationality, the reason to see things morally, shifts in criminal law
Unless the o$cer is considered to have an unreasonably high standard, an
arrest cannot be made simply to carry out an investigation
If grounds exist on a subjective and objective basis, the actions do not
invalidate the arrest
Slide 5
Police have the right to frisk and detain, and collect anything that’s in plain
view inside vehicles
R. v. Caslake: person was detained, vehicle was impounded, RCMP o$cer
doing an inventory of the vehicle found more narcotics. Caslake was then
convicted with the intention of distributing. He appealed the case and the
question was: was the cocaine admissible? Court said: section 8 was violated,
but section 24 allowed it to be admitted
Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 2 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get access

$10 USD/m
Billed $120 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
40 Verified Answers
Study Guides
1 Booster Class
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
30 Verified Answers
Study Guides
1 Booster Class