On Friday, July 30, 2010 the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in R. v. Cornell, 2010 SCC 31, a case that considered the reasonableness of “hard entry” searches. A hard entry usually involves the police entering a home to conduct a search with the use of force and surprise. In this case, nine members of the Calgary Tactical Unit, all wearing balaclavas, rammed through the front of the Appellant’s home and entered the dwelling with loaded weapons drawn and raised. The CCLA intervened in the case and argued that invasive entry tactics to search personal residences should only be used when they are necessary to protect officer safety or prevent the destruction of evidence, and even then, only where the benefits outweigh the potential dangers. A four-judge majority of the Supreme Court found the search in Cornell was reasonable while three judges dissented, finding the search a violation of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The dissenting judges would have excluded the evidence as a result of the breach.
Read a copy of the CCLA’s factum here.
Read a copy of the decision here.
