[26] Having properly seized the vehicle, the police were under an obligation to keep the vehicle and its contents safe. To fulfill this responsibility, the police had to conduct an inventory search of the vehicle: R. v. Nicolosi (1998), 1998 CanLII 2006 (ON CA), 40 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.), at paras. 29-30.
[27] Although the appellant argues that the police were really searching the vehicle for a purpose unrelated to inventorying its contents, the trial judge specifically rejected this suggestion. The trial judge accepted the evidence given by the police officers, finding each of them credible. She concluded that their primary motivation to search was to inventory the contents of the car. This is a purpose that is consistent with this court’s judgment in Nicolosi. The fact that the police may have suspected that they would find drugs while searching the vehicle did not alter their authority to conduct an inventory search: R. v. Wint, 2009 ONCA 52, 93 O.R. (3d) 514, at para. 11, leave to appeal refused [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 164. Once they found the drugs, the police acted responsibly, ceased their search, resealed the car and obtained a search warrant.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire