Shortening the Leash: Credibility, Appellate Intervention and Sniffer Dog Searches

41 Pages Posted: 30 Jul 2014

Date Written: July 29, 2014

Abstract

The Supreme Court of Canada sought to clarify the application of the reasonable suspicion standard in using sniffer dogs to perform searches in R v Chehil and R v MacKenzie. The reasonable suspicion standard is fact specific and usually relies on the evidence of a single witness. The decision is largely based on findings of credibility made by the trial judge. The paper reviews the recent case law involving sniffer dog searches and concludes that in attempting to reassess the application of the reasonable suspicion standard, the Supreme Court of Canada and lower appellate courts have overstepped their role as reviewer of the law and delved into the individual assessment of facts found by the trial judge.

Keywords: Appeals, Credibility, Criminal Appeals, Criminal Law, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Findings of Credibility, Sniffer Dogs, Reasonable Suspicion, Vehicle Searches, Voir Dire

JEL Classification: K14, K41

Suggested Citation

Foy, James, Shortening the Leash: Credibility, Appellate Intervention and Sniffer Dog Searches (July 29, 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2473594 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2473594

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
112
Abstract Views
576
Rank
439,805
PlumX Metrics