257:(SITA) rule. The rule allows an officer to search and seize anything from a lawfully arrested person if such action would advance the objectives of the arrest, including the discovery of evidence, prevention of escape, or ensuring the safety of the officer or the arrested person. The SITA rule is exceptional among section 8 compliant laws in that it allows the search of an individual on a standard lower than reasonable and probable grounds, and because it does not require prior judicial authorization (a warrant). The SITA rule is reasonable, not because arrested people have a reduced expectation of privacy, but because the "need for the law enforcement authorities to gain control of things or information which outweighs the individual’s interest in privacy".
351:
some of those searches. In its new framework, the Court bifurcated these searches into two categories. First, searches incident to arrest of an area of the home under the physical control of the accused at the time of the arrest would continue to be subject to the old SITA framework. However, in order to search an area of the home not under the physical control of the accused at the time of the arrest, officers must meet two conditions. Namely, the officers must 1) have a reasonable suspicion that there is a safety risk to the accused, officers, or the general public that would be addressed by the search, and 2) narrowly tailor the search towards addressing that suspicion, so that the search is no more intrusive than necessary to satisfy the safety risk.
355:
of Stairs at the time of the arrest. The Court held that even though the living room search engaged the heightened threshold, the officers had nonetheless met the two conditions for such searches. Because the officers reasonably suspected that there was a safety risk which could be addressed by the search, and because the search was narrowly tailored to address that concern. With the risk being that there were other victims in the house that needed attention, and the officers having tailored their response by only performing a visual clearance search. The justices noted that the only reason the search discovered methamphetamine was because it was in plain view.
310:
woman's safety, forced their way in. They saw a woman with fresh wounds to her face run up from the stairs to the basement. They then observed
Matthew Stairs run past the bottom of the staircase. Stairs would barricade himself in the basement laundry room, and then be arrested shortly. After his arrest, the police conduced a visual clearance search of the basement living room area, during which they found a plastic bag containing methamphetamine in clear view. The accused was charged with possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, assault, and breach of probation.
29:
334:, arguing that the judge should not have applied the SITA rule. A split Court upheld his conviction by a 2-1 margin. Justice Michal Fairburn, writing for the majority, held that the traditional SITA framework applied, and that it was constitutional as applied to searches of the home and therefore it did not need to be modified. Justice Ian Nordheimer dissented, stating that the home could only be searched incident to arrest if there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe there was an imminent risk to public safety.
373:
also rejected the distinction in the majority's opinion between spaces that were under the physical control of accused and those that were not, saying that it was unnecessary and overcomplicated the framework. Applying her framework to the facts of the case, Karakatsanis J found the search unlawful, and said the evidence should've been excluded based on the seriousness of the state conduct and its impact on the accused's privacy interests.
223:
All justices agreed that the traditional standard was not compliant with section 8, and needed to be modified as it related to searches of the home to be constitutional. But the majority and minority split 5–4 on how stringent the new modified standard should be, with the majority opting for one less
372:
risk to public safety which required the search, and the search was narrowly tailored to address that suspicion. Karakatsanis J stated that the requirement for imminence was necessary to delineate the situations in which getting a warrant was feasible from those that required an urgent response. She
354:
Applying the test to the facts of the case, the Court held that there had been no breach of Stairs' rights. It was conceded that the home was sufficiently proximate to the arrest to enable its search under the SITA authority, and that the basement living room had not been under the physical control
326:
to have the evidence of the methamphetamine excluded from the trial, arguing that it was obtained in a manner that violated his section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The trial judge dismissed the application, finding that there had been no breach of section 8. Noting that he had
350:
wrote for the five justice majority. The Court held that the SITA rule authorizes police officers to search an area sufficiently proximate to an arrest, the scope of which varies by context and which may encompass a home. They further held that a modified version of the framework was necessary for
260:
There have been several cases, however, where the SITA rule has been held unreasonable as it relates to some types of searches. This occurs due to the heightened privacy interests of the accused, which renders the balance struck by the SITA rule disproportionate. These cases include the taking of
249:
The purpose of section 8 is to prevent unjustified searches before they occur. A search will be reasonable under section 8 if it is 1) authorized by law, 2) the law itself is reasonable, and 3) the search was conducted in a reasonable manner. A reasonable law under section 8 is one which properly
309:
A witness called 911 to report seeing a male driver repeatedly strike a female passenger in his vehicle. Police officers were able to track the car to a driveway of a house. They knocked on the front door, while loudly announcing their presence, but no one answered. The officers, fearing for the
367:
wrote a dissent, which was joined by two other justices. Karakatsanis J agreed with the majority that the current SITA framework needed to be modified in order to be constitutional insofar it relates to searches of the home, however she held that the majority's framework was still not stringent
585:
Territorial privacy has its origins in the notion that "the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress"... . This has developed into a more nuanced hierarchy protecting privacy: in the home, being the place where our most intimate and private activities are most likely to take
380:
wrote a concurrence in which she endorsed the dissent's framework. She agreed that the basement living room search had been unlawful and breached Stairs' section 8 right against unreasonable search and seizure, but would've still admitted the derivative evidence based on the
291:). In each of these cases the Court modified the search incident to arrest rule to be constitutionally complaint, with differing levels of burden imposed on the state to justify the search based on the privacy interests implicated by each type of search.
504:
A search incident to a lawful arrest must.... related to the reasons for the arrest such as safety of the arrestee or officer, preservation of evidence from destruction, and the discovery of evidence that can be used in the prosecution of the
368:
enough to reflect the high degree of privacy interests implicated by searches of the home. Under the dissent's framework, searches of the home incident to arrest would only be valid if the police reasonably suspected that there was an
327:
been lawfully arrested (the police could enter the house without a warrant because of exigent circumstances), and that the search was done to advance the objectives of the arrest. He was convicted on all charges.
294:
The Court has also repeatedly recognized the sanctity of the home, based on the principle that it as an individual's "castle", and the unique privacy interests it implicates. In its landmark decision in
666:
107:-compliant. A search incident to arrest of an area of the home not within the physical control of the accused at the time of the arrest will only be valid at common law if:
323:
217:
208:. The Court established new standards for searches of a person's home after they have been arrested. At issue in the case was whether the traditional
388:. Côté J held that since the officers had been operating in good faith on what they reasonably assumed to be the correct law for such searches, the
606:
401:
274:
109:
1. The police officer conducting it reasonably suspects that there is a risk to public safety that will be addressed by the search, and
476:
A reasonable law is one that strikes a reasonable balance between the particular state interest that is pursued by the law and privacy
238:
102:
899:
909:
904:
319:
532:
216:, which allows police officers to engage in warrantless searches of lawfully arrested persons, was compliant with
301:, the Court held that warrantless entry into the home was not permitted except under exigent circumstances.
570:
461:
331:
82:
419:
489:
884:
435:
667:"Court of Appeal split over constitutionality of warrantless search that produced methamphetamine"
876:
364:
205:
138:
34:
250:
balances the privacy interests of the person with the law enforcement objectives of the state.
124:
880:
146:
8:
392:
factors favoured admission of the evidence in the particular circumstances of the case.
377:
142:
60:
28:
382:
343:
158:
134:
154:
893:
347:
263:
162:
150:
245:
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure
297:
287:
269:
209:
95:
101:
rule needs to be modified as it relates to searches of the home to be
177:
Moldaver and Jamal J, joined by Wagner CJ, and Rowe and
Kasirer JJ
607:"Supreme Court makes it tougher for police to search homes"
569:
Government of Canada, Department of
Justice (1999-11-09).
488:
Government of Canada, Department of
Justice (1999-11-09).
460:
Government of Canada, Department of
Justice (1999-11-09).
204:, 2022 SCC 11 is a constitutional rights decision of the
111:
2. The search is carefully tailored to address that risk.
253:
One authority that allows searches is the common law
568:
487:
459:
891:
571:"Charterpedia - Section 8 – Search and seizure"
490:"Charterpedia - Section 8 – Search and seizure"
462:"Charterpedia - Section 8 – Search and seizure"
218:section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
193:Karakatsanis J, joined by Brown and Martin JJ
402:2022 reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada
224:stringent than what the minority proposed.
358:
239:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
220:as it related to searches of the home.
892:
322:, Stairs brought an application under
54:Matthew Stairs v Her Majesty The Queen
772:
770:
600:
598:
596:
594:
304:
604:
420:SCC Case Information - Docket 39416
13:
767:
591:
313:
14:
921:
869:
27:
863:SCC at paras 162-166 & 172.
854:
842:
830:
818:
806:
794:
782:
755:
743:
731:
719:
707:
695:
683:
659:
647:
635:
623:
562:
550:
538:
522:
510:
481:
453:
441:
425:
413:
1:
900:Supreme Court of Canada cases
407:
285:, and searches of the phone (
227:
324:section 24(2) of the Charter
232:
7:
803:SCC at paras 132 & 137.
395:
332:Court of Appeal for Ontario
83:Court of Appeal for Ontario
10:
926:
910:Canadian criminal case law
851:SCC at para 159 & 160.
337:
81:Judgment for Crown in the
43:Hearing: November 2, 2021
905:2022 in Canadian case law
752:SCC at paras 85 & 97.
605:Fine, Sean (2022-04-08).
320:Superior Court of Justice
255:Search Incident to Arrest
214:Search Incident to Arrest
189:
181:
173:
168:
130:
120:
115:
99:Search Incident to Arrest
93:
88:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
26:
21:
877:Supreme Court of Canada
422:Supreme Court of Canada
365:Andromache Karakatsanis
359:Dissent and concurrence
330:Stairs appealed to the
206:Supreme Court of Canada
139:Andromache Karakatsanis
45:Judgment: April 8, 2022
35:Supreme Court of Canada
16:Canadian legal decision
879:decision available at
247:
243:
839:SCC at para 155-158.
671:www.lawtimesnews.com
656:SCC, at paras 24-29.
644:SCC, at paras 21-23.
632:SCC, at paras 11-19.
547:SCC at paras 42-46.
267:), strip searches (
611:The Globe and Mail
305:Factual background
575:www.justice.gc.ca
466:www.justice.gc.ca
273:), penile swabs (
237:Section 8 of the
197:
196:
917:
864:
858:
852:
846:
840:
834:
828:
827:SCC at para 108.
822:
816:
815:SCC at para 135.
810:
804:
798:
792:
791:SCC at para 126.
786:
780:
779:SCC at para 125.
774:
765:
764:SCC at para 101.
759:
753:
747:
741:
735:
729:
728:SCC at para 103.
723:
717:
711:
705:
699:
693:
687:
681:
680:
678:
677:
663:
657:
651:
645:
639:
633:
627:
621:
620:
618:
617:
602:
589:
588:
582:
581:
566:
560:
554:
548:
542:
536:
526:
520:
514:
508:
507:
501:
500:
485:
479:
478:
473:
472:
457:
451:
450:SCC at para 112.
445:
439:
429:
423:
417:
344:Micheal Moldaver
261:bodily samples (
159:Nicholas Kasirer
135:Michael Moldaver
116:Court membership
31:
19:
18:
925:
924:
920:
919:
918:
916:
915:
914:
890:
889:
872:
867:
859:
855:
847:
843:
835:
831:
823:
819:
811:
807:
799:
795:
787:
783:
775:
768:
760:
756:
748:
744:
740:SCC at para 83.
736:
732:
724:
720:
716:SCC at para 82.
712:
708:
704:SCC at para 56.
700:
696:
692:SCC at para 60.
688:
684:
675:
673:
665:
664:
660:
652:
648:
640:
636:
628:
624:
615:
613:
603:
592:
579:
577:
567:
563:
559:SCC at para 49.
555:
551:
543:
539:
527:
523:
519:SCC at para 34.
515:
511:
498:
496:
486:
482:
470:
468:
458:
454:
446:
442:
430:
426:
418:
414:
410:
398:
361:
340:
316:
314:In lower courts
307:
235:
230:
131:Puisne Justices
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
923:
913:
912:
907:
902:
888:
887:
871:
870:External links
868:
866:
865:
853:
841:
829:
817:
805:
793:
781:
766:
754:
742:
730:
718:
706:
694:
682:
658:
646:
634:
622:
590:
561:
549:
537:
521:
509:
480:
452:
440:
438:, at para 113.
424:
411:
409:
406:
405:
404:
397:
394:
360:
357:
339:
336:
315:
312:
306:
303:
234:
231:
229:
226:
195:
194:
191:
187:
186:
183:
179:
178:
175:
171:
170:
166:
165:
155:Sheilah Martin
132:
128:
127:
125:Richard Wagner
122:
118:
117:
113:
112:
91:
90:
86:
85:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
922:
911:
908:
906:
903:
901:
898:
897:
895:
886:
882:
878:
875:Full text of
874:
873:
862:
857:
850:
845:
838:
833:
826:
821:
814:
809:
802:
797:
790:
785:
778:
773:
771:
763:
758:
751:
746:
739:
734:
727:
722:
715:
710:
703:
698:
691:
686:
672:
668:
662:
655:
650:
643:
638:
631:
626:
612:
608:
601:
599:
597:
595:
587:
576:
572:
565:
558:
553:
546:
541:
535:, at para 17.
534:
530:
525:
518:
513:
506:
495:
494:justice.gc.ca
491:
484:
477:
467:
463:
456:
449:
444:
437:
433:
428:
421:
416:
412:
403:
400:
399:
393:
391:
387:
385:
379:
374:
371:
366:
356:
352:
349:
345:
335:
333:
328:
325:
321:
311:
302:
300:
299:
292:
290:
289:
284:
281:
280:
277:
272:
271:
266:
265:
258:
256:
251:
246:
242:
240:
225:
221:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
202:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:Reasons given
167:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
147:Russell Brown
144:
140:
136:
133:
129:
126:
123:
121:Chief Justice
119:
114:
110:
106:
105:
100:
97:
92:
87:
84:
80:
78:Prior history
76:
72:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
860:
856:
848:
844:
836:
832:
824:
820:
812:
808:
800:
796:
788:
784:
776:
761:
757:
749:
745:
737:
733:
725:
721:
713:
709:
701:
697:
689:
685:
674:. Retrieved
670:
661:
653:
649:
641:
637:
629:
625:
614:. Retrieved
610:
584:
578:. Retrieved
574:
564:
556:
552:
544:
540:
528:
524:
516:
512:
503:
497:. Retrieved
493:
483:
475:
469:. Retrieved
465:
455:
447:
443:
431:
427:
415:
389:
383:
378:Suzanne Côté
375:
369:
362:
353:
348:Mahmud Jamal
341:
329:
317:
308:
296:
293:
286:
282:
278:
275:
268:
264:R v Stillman
262:
259:
254:
252:
248:
244:
236:
222:
213:
200:
199:
198:
163:Mahmud Jamal
151:Malcolm Rowe
143:Suzanne Côté
108:
103:
98:
53:
33:
533:1998 SCR 51
529:R v Caslake
436:2022 SCC 11
182:Concurrence
65:2022 SCC 11
894:Categories
676:2022-07-01
616:2022-04-10
580:2022-04-10
499:2022-04-10
471:2022-04-10
432:R v Stairs
408:References
298:R v Feeney
288:R v Fearon
270:R v Golden
228:Background
210:common law
201:R v Stairs
96:common law
70:Docket No.
22:R v Stairs
342:Justices
241:declares:
233:Section 8
212:power of
61:Citations
586:place...
505:arrestee
396:See also
376:Justice
370:imminent
363:Justice
174:Majority
338:Holding
318:At the
190:Dissent
104:Charter
89:Holding
885:CanLII
861:Stairs
849:Stairs
837:Stairs
825:Stairs
813:Stairs
801:Stairs
789:Stairs
777:Stairs
762:Stairs
750:Stairs
738:Stairs
726:Stairs
714:Stairs
702:Stairs
690:Stairs
654:Stairs
642:Stairs
630:Stairs
557:Stairs
545:Stairs
517:Stairs
448:Stairs
185:Côté J
73:39416
881:LexUM
390:Grant
384:Grant
279:Saeed
883:and
386:test
346:and
94:The
276:R v
896::
769:^
669:.
609:.
593:^
583:.
573:.
531:,
502:.
492:.
474:.
464:.
434:,
161:,
157:,
153:,
149:,
145:,
141:,
137:,
679:.
619:.
283:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
