Le consentement à la fouille est vicié lorsqu'on mentionne à la personne qu'à défaut de consentir à la fouille, une technique d'enquête policière sera utilisée pour arriver au même résultat

R. v. Bergauer-Free, 2009 ONCA 610

Lien vers la décision

[57]         On the facts of this case, however, the misinformation had the further effect of eviscerating any meaningful choice the appellant had available to him. Translated, the message he received from Officer Yousif was: - you can refuse to consent but it will do you no good because I will bring in the canine unit regardless. That amounts to what the United States Supreme Court referred to in Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968), as “colorably lawful coercion”.  And, as Stewart J. for the majority observed at p. 550: “Where there is coercion, there cannot be consent”. I agree.