Subjects: s. 8, s. 24(2), facial validity, confidential informants, surveillance, drug trafficking, search warrant, Carter J.
The accused faced drug trafficking and firearms charges following the execution of search warrants for his residence and two vehicles. Carter J. upheld the vehicle warrants but excluded the evidence seized from the residence.
The ITO relied on tips from two confidential informants that Carter J. found were general, second-hand, and only modestly credible, neither informant’s criminal record or outstanding charges were disclosed, and neither tip specified how, when, or where the accused was dealing drugs. Standing alone, this information could not have supported the warrants. However, eleven days of surveillance recorded 23 apparent hand-to-hand transactions conducted directly from the accused’s vehicles, which the Court found more than sufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the vehicle warrants independent of the CI evidence.
The residence warrant failed on a different basis. Nothing in the ITO placed drug activity inside the home itself, the affiant’s theory rested only on the accused being seen leaving the residence carrying a satchel before conducting transactions from his vehicles. Carter J. held this supported mere possibility, not credibly based probability, that evidence would be found inside the dwelling, and that the warrant for the residence therefore could not have issued.
On s. 24(2), Carter J. found the negligence in seeking a residential warrant on such thin grounds, despite the legal standard being “crystal clear”, was serious enough to weigh heavily toward exclusion, notwithstanding no bad faith or intent to mislead the issuing justice. Combined with the high privacy interest in a residential search, these two factors outweighed the reliability and importance of the evidence to the Crown’s case. The drugs, cash, and firearms seized from the residence were excluded under s. 24(2); the vehicle evidence remains admissible.
