Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 48 SPD [102] Accepting that the police officers, by asking questions of the Youngs, attempted to obtain information over which Mr. and Mrs. Young had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the difficulty with this argument is that the police never did anything that could possibly be construed as a search or seizure. Had the police entered his residence 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) without consent or obtained his private medical information without consent, Mr. Young might have some basis for alleging that a warrantless search had occurred. His own evidence, however, establishes that the police did nothing more than question him about his medical marihuana exemption upon learning that he was in possession of a controlled substance. [103] Mr. Young was unable to produce and I am unaware of any authority for the proposition that s. 8 protects an individual from police questioning. While s. 10 imposes some restrictions on the ability of the police to question a detainee, Mr. Young was never detained. [104] Upon being questioned, Mr. Young was at liberty to disclose or withhold information as he saw fit. He did, in fact, refuse to disclose certain information to the police officers with whom he dealt. Mr. Young's s. 8 rights simply are not engaged by a request from police that he voluntarily
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 49 disclose certain information. The police questioning amounted to nothing more than a request that Mr. Young waive his right to privacy in that information. The police are entitled to make such requests. [105] The police are charged with the duty of enforcing the provisions of the CDSA, including those that prohibit the possession and cultivation of marihuana. In my view, the 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) police had a legal right, probably even a duty, to make inquiries into the lawfulness of Mr. Young's admitted possession of marihuana. Mr. Young contends that the police should not be permitted to enter into an investigation pertaining to marihuana possession unless they have evidence of non-medicinal use. Such a proposition ignores the fact that the vast majority of marihuana users in this country do not have Health Canada exemptions and are not in lawful possession of marihuana. To prevent police officers from making inquiries without evidence of non-medicinal use (and Mr. Young does not explain what would constitute such evidence) would drastically hinder the ability of the police to enforce the marihuana-related provisions of the CDSA. [106] Moreover, Health Canada has provided a means by which Mr. Young can advise his local police detachment of his exemption so as to avoid the questioning of which he
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 47: Young v. Saanich Police Department,

Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?