↑ R v Bennett, 1996 CanLII 6344 (QC CA), 108 CCC 175, per Proulx JA.R v Araujo, 2000 SCC 65 (CanLII), 2 SCR 992, at para 54 R v MacDonald, 2012 ONCA 244 (CanLII), 290 OAC 21, per Laskin JA R v Rocha, 2012 ONCA 707 (CanLII), 292 CCC (3d) 325, per Rosenberg JA ↑ R v Debot, 1989 CanLII 13 (SCC), SCJ No 118, per Wilson J, at p.R v Garofoli, 1990 CanLII 52 (SCC),, per Sopinka J, at para 68 ↑ R v Warford, 2001 NFCA 64 (CanLII), 161 CCC 309, per Welsh JA.R v Jir, 2010 BCCA 497 (CanLII), 264 CCC (3d) 64, per Frankel JA, at para 8 ↑ R v Graham, 2013 BCCA 75 (CanLII), 299 CCC (3d) 204, per Neilson JA, at para 15.Where there is no corroboration or confirmation, the reliability of the source is the essential issue. The purpose of considering the level of detail is to "ensure that it is based on more than mere rumour or gossip" CorroborationĬonfirmation of the criminal aspects of a tip is important in cases such as where the tip is anonymous. It cannot be considered ex post facto from the results of the search. Ĭonsideration of the reliability of the information must be at the time of the warrantless search or application for a warrant. Where reliability is unknown, "a relatively thorough investigation is essential" in order to provide corroboration. The law must maintain a "distinction between acting on a tip from a reliable source and acting on a tip from an unproven source". Hearsay from the informant can be sufficient. The test remains the same whether considering a warrantless search or a warrant such as a wire-tap. Inquiry must be made into the three Garofoli factors to determine whether it can be reasonably relied upon. Īn anonymous tip generally is not sufficient. Weaknesses present in one factor can be made-up for by strengths on other factors. None of the factors are not "water-tight" inquiries. Īll these factors are to be balanced together in the "totality of the circumstances" to determine if the evidence meets "the standard of reasonableness" (or referred to as on a standard of "Reasonable probability"). This test is to apply when a warrant is "based largely on information coming from a confidential informant". was the information "corroborated" by police investigation prior to making the decision to conduct the search?.where that information was based on a "tip" originating from a source outside the police, was that source "credible"?.was the information predicting the commission of a criminal offence "compelling"?.This test was previously stated as the "Debot" test requiring the three "C"s:
Ī "tip" from an anonymous or confidential source can be used to form the grounds of arrest or search. Information from a confidential informer is only admissible where the defence challenges the grounds of a search, seizure, or arrest, otherwise it is not relevant. These are most pervasively seen in dealings related to drugs and organized crime where confidential communications are so often shared to persons who may have an interest in revealing it to police officers. Police will often rely upon confidential informers to form their grounds to effect a warrantless arrest or for the issuance of a judicial authorization such as a search warrant.
0 kommentar(er)
