R. v. Sanchez, 1994 CanLII 5271 (ON SC)
In addition, in considering the facial validity of search warrants and search warrant informations, there exists a judicially created subset of review guidelines, including the following:
1. Quality of drafting
Search warrants are statutorily authorized investigative aids issued most frequently before criminal proceedings have been instituted. Almost invariably a peace officer prepares the search warrant and information without the benefit of legal advice. The specificity and legal precision of drafting expected of pleadings at the trial stage is not the measure of quality required in a search warrant information: Times Square Book Store v. R., supra, at p. 512, per Cory J.A. (as he then was); Lubell v. R.reflex, (1973), 11 C.C.C. (2d) 188 (Ont. H.C.J.) at pp. 190-91, per Zuber J.; Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) at pp. 235-36, per Rehnquist J. (as he then was); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) at pp. 108-09, per Goldberg J.
2. Review of the whole document
The appropriate approach for judicial review of a search warrant information is scrutiny of the whole of the document, not a limited focus upon an isolated passage or paragraph. Reference to all data within the four corners of the information provides the fair and reasonable context for the assertions in question: R. v. Molinaro, Ontario Supreme Court, June 23, 1978, at p. 2, per Cory J.; R. v. Bestline, Ontario Supreme Court, January 5, 1978 at p. 3, per Krever J. (as he then was); R. v. Thames Valley, Ontario Supreme Court, May 8, 1980 at p. 1, per Reid J.; United States v. Ventresca, supra, at p. 109, per Goldberg J.
3. Drawing reasonable inferences
A search warrant information draftsperson or affiant is obliged to state investigative facts sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed, that the things to be searched for will afford evidence, and that the things in question will be discovered at a specified place. An issuing justice is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from stated facts and an informant is not obliged to underline the obvious: Lubell v. R., supra, at p. 190, per Zuber J.; United States v. Wuagneux, reflex, 603 F. 2d 1343 (11th Cir., 1982) at pp. 1349-50, per Ingraham J. In this regard, some deference should be paid to the ability of a trained peace officer to draw inferences and make deductions which might well elude an untrained person: United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) at pp. 417-18, per Burger C.J. (cited with apparent approval in R. v. Simpson (1993), 1993 CanLII 3379 (ON CA), 12 O.R. (3d) 182 (C.A.) at pp. 301-02, 79 C.C.C. (3d) 482 at p. 501, per Doherty J.A. Probable cause does not arise however from purely conclusory narrative. A search warrant information is not a Crown brief and the affiant is not obliged to record every minute step taken in the course of the investigation: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), 1991 CanLII 50 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 459 at p. 483, 67 C.C.C. (3d) 544 at p. 562, per Cory J.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire