R. v. Feeney

SCCInfoBox
case-name=R. v. Feeney
full-case-name=Michael Feeney v. Her Majesty The Queen
heard-date=June 11, 1996
decided-date=May 22, 1997
citations= [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; (1997), 146 D.L.R. (4th) 609; [1997] 6 W.W.R. 634; (1997), 115 C.C.C. (3d) 129; (1997), 44 C.R.R. (2d) 1; (1997), 7 C.R. (5th) 101
docket=24752
history=Judgment for the Crown in the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
ruling=
ratio=
SCC=1996-1997
Majority=Sopinka J.
JoinMajority=LaForest, Cory, Iacobucci, and Major JJ.
Dissent=L'Heureux-Dubé J.
JoinDissent=Gonthier and McLachlin JJ.
Dissent2=Lamer C.J. (paras. 1-3)
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied=

"R. v. Feeney", [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the section 8 Charter right against search and seizure. The Court held that the police are not permitted to enter into someone's house without a search warrant.

Background

On the morning of June 8, 1991, 85 year-old Frank Boyle was found dead in his Likely, British Columbia home from several severe blows to the head with a crowbar. At the scene, the police found a Sportsman brand cigarette, and later found Mr. Boyle's truck abandoned in a ditch. On a tip from local residents, the police located the driver of the truck, Michael Feeney, sleeping in a trailer behind the residence of a friend of his.

The police knocked on the trailer door, and shouted "police", but there was no reply. Guns drawn, the police entered. They found Feeney in bed and shook his leg to get his attention. The police asked him to get up and go outside where the light was better. Upon getting Mr. Feeney outside the police noticed his clothes were covered in blood. They read him his rights, he acknowledged he understood them, and they arrested him.

Upon questioning him, Mr. Feeney said that the blood was from getting hit by a baseball the day before. The police further noted the same brand of cigarettes in the Trailer as was found in Mr. Boyle's house. He was taken to an RCMP detachment, finger printed, made to use a breathalyzer, and for the first day or so was unsuccessful in contacting a lawyer. During this time he was questioned further, admitting he had hit and robbed Boyle. Once a search warrant was obtained, the police found Boyle's stolen property in the trailer. It was only after all of this that he finally met with a lawyer.

At trial in the Supreme Court of British Columbia he was convicted of second degree murder. On appeal the conviction was upheld.

The issues before the Supreme Court were:
# whether the police violated section 8 of the Charter during their investigation;
# whether the police violated section 10(b) of the Charter during their investigation;
# whether any evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court held 5 to 4 that section 8 and 10(b) were violated, thus excluding all evidence gathered as a result of this violation under section 24(2).

Reasons of the Court

The majority was written by Sopinka J. with Forest, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ concurring.

ection 8

Sopinka first considered the leading case of "R. v. Landry" [1986] on warrantless arrests in a dwelling, which held that a police officer could only arrest if there are "reasonable and probable grounds" to believe that the person is on the premises, the proper announcement is made before entering, and that the officer reasonably believes that the person has committed or will commit an indictable offence. "Reasonable and probable grounds" must be found on subjective and objective grounds ("R. v. Storrey" [1990] ), however, Sopinka held that there were no such grounds in this situation. The officer had admitted that he didn't think he had proper ground to enter at the time. He then went one step further and held that "R. v. Landry" is bad law in post-Charter law and that any entry into dwellings must be done with a warrant.

ection 24(2)

Dissent

Two dissents were written, one by L'Heureux-Dubé J., with Gonthier and McLachlin JJ concurring, and another by Lamer CJ.

External links

* [http://www.criminallawyers.ca/newslett/aug97/rose.htm case summary]
* [http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/1997/febkg.html Government's response to R. v. Feeney]
*lexum-scc2|1997|2|13|342