Criminal Law | Case Study | Assignment

Running head- CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

Criminal Law1
1. R. v. Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 (CanLII)
Facts
Two men raided a jewellery store and were possessing armed weapons. They told the
owners to load their car with the jewellery. The police could not recover the jewellery as well
as the weapons. Later police secured the vehicle and detained the burglars. They seize their
cell phone without a prop warrant. The messages and the photos were introduced as evidence
in the court. Fearon appealed that detaining the cell phone was a breach of their right to
privacy.
Issues
Was the act of the police in seizing the cellphone lawful?
Law
Section 8 of the Charter: “Every person possesses the right to secure the evidence that is
searched using unreasonable force.”
Analysis
It was observed by the court that an arrest could be considered lawful if such seizure
of cell phones are permitted. It restricts upon the permission to obtain such evidence upon
warrant and reasonable ground. It states that the incidents relating to searches must be
modified when it related to the seizure of cell phones. It was held that the search of the
cellphone did not breach the rights under Section 8 of Charter. Further, Fearon was convicted
for robbery and possession of the firearm.

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.