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: Suggested Citation