R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.
Below are three section numbers you need to know from the Charter of Rights to understand the Feeney case.
• Section 8 everyone has the right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure (Class Lecture, 2013).
• Section 10 (b) everyone has the right to arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right.
• Section 24 (2) evidence is obtained as a result, or during, a Charter breach and the evidence should be excluded if it would bring the criminal justice system into disrepute (Class Lecture, 2013).
The appeal for the appellant Michael Feeney went to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether an appeal for the appellant should be granted or overturned (R.v.Feeney,1997). The decision for the appeal at the Supreme Court came in a 5-4 spilt ruling by La Forest, Cory, Iacobucci, Major JJ and was delivered by Sopinka. In their decision the appeal of Mr. Feeney was granted, the court set aside the evidence and ordered a new trial. Sopinka determined the appellant’s rights under section 8 and section 10(b) were violated during the actual arrest and police investigation. Sopinka and his colleagues concluded the following first the entry into the dwelling house violated the appellants section 8 rights because the entry did not meet the common law and was not authorized by law . Second, even if the entry and search was authorized by law, however the common law set out in the cases of Landry, Supra, Eccles, and the entry cannot be justified under the Charter regulations.
Before the Charter was regulated the Landry Test was the guideline for warrantless searches. It was balancing between helping the police in their duty to protect society and the privacy interest of individual in their dwelling house (R.v.Feeney,1997). This test no longer applies because the test must be adjusted to the...