Quote:
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor
Rosenberg J.A. then addressed the respondent’s submission that the seizure of the urine sample prior to the respondent’s arrest violated his rights under ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter. He found that the respondent did not voluntarily consent to the taking of a urine sample as he was led to believe that his detention would continue until evidence of either his guilt or innocence was established by a urine test or a bowel movement. R. v. Stillman, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607 states that a suspect’s refusal to consent to the collection of bodily samples while in custody becomes meaningless if, because of his detention, he cannot prevent those samples from being taken.
I think the officers had sufficent grounds to detain this guy and wait till he either **** out the heroin or admitted that he swallowed it. The guy lied once saying that he never went to Guana and then later admitted to it. That alone should be enough.
|
I hear what you're saying, but the bolded part is to me the most persuasive counter-argument. I realize that in this case the guy was guilty, but the court has to make the decision on the basis of how reasonable that assumption was, and on whether the suspect's rights were protected, regardless of the actual outcome of the investigation.
Consider this: If he had been innocent, the story would be "Ghanan man Forced to take Dump while Customs Officers Watch." It would be a horrific violation of his rights.
Why don't they do an X-Ray? That's a lot less gross.