Criminal Law2
Conclusion
In conclusion, it was held in this case that the evidence of the cell phone was lawful
and did not violate the Sec 8 of the charter and Fieron was convicted for the alleged crime.
2. R v Wasilewski, 2016 SKCA 112 (CanLII)
Facts
A surveillance was set upon Darryl Allon Chartier as it was alleged that she was to buy
marihuana. Upon observation when he reached the residence of supplier Mr Chartier, and Ms
Wasilewski was driving the vehicle. The RCMP stopped the vehicle and arrested both of
them. A zip lock bag was disclosed from which 220 gms of marihuana was obtained. Along
with that, they seized their cell phones. Both were charged for possessing marihuana for
trafficking. During the trial, Ms Wailewaski alleged the officer for privacy rights.
Issue
1. Was the search that was conducted by the officers were on valid grounds?
Law
 Section 24(2) of the Charter: This provision obligates the law execution authorities to
precludes inappropriately acquired proof from being admitted when there is a intrudes
the fair trial.
 Section 8 of the Charter: Every person possesses the right to secure the evidence that
is searched using unreasonable force (Kramer, 2018).
Analysis
The decision given in the R v. Fearson case was followed by the trial judge, and a voir dire
was conducted and found that the second search was not following the arrest. He was not
pleased by the search procedure and stated that it was a violation of Sec 8 of the Charter.

+13062052269

info@desklib.com

Criminal Law | Case Study | Assignment

Contribute Materials

Related Documents

Impact of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments on Courts