CASE: R. v. Stillman [1997]
1 S.C.R. 607
LOCATION:
In text page 331
CASE RELATES
TO:
Arrest and search without warrant s.495 – conditions
that must be met
FACTS OF THE
CASE:
The accused, who was
17 years old at the time, was arrested in 1991 for the brutal murder of a
teenage girl. He was the last person seen with the victim on the night of the
crime. The victim died from wounds to the head. Semen was found in her vagina
and a human bite mark had been left on her abdomen. At the police station, the
accused's lawyers informed the police by letter that the accused was not
consenting to provide any bodily samples, including hair and teeth imprints, or
to give any statements. Once the lawyers left, police officers took evidence
contrary to the lawyer’s instructions. The accused was subsequently released
but was arrested again several months later. At that time, more evidence was
taken without consent. The accused was later convicted by a jury of first
degree murder. There was great debate on the admissibility of the evidence, but
the majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's conviction.
HELD:
The Supreme Court granted the appeal and ordered a new trial at which
the hair samples, buccal swabs and dental impressions should be excluded. The
court specified under what circumstances one could search someone under arrest
(i.e.: without a search warrant).
REASONING AND
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Writing for the
majority, Mr. Justice Cory stated:
“Three
conditions must be satisfied in
order for a search to be validly undertaken pursuant to the common law power of
search incident to a lawful arrest.
First, the arrest must be lawful. No search, no
matter how reasonable, may be upheld under this common law power where the
arrest which gave rise to it was arbitrary or otherwise unlawful.
Second, the search must have been conducted as an
"incident" to the lawful arrest. To these almost self-evident
conditions must be added a
third, which applies to all searches undertaken by
police: the manner in which the search is carried out must be reasonable.”