Sniffing Out the Ancillary Powers Implications of the Dog Sniff Cases

47 Supreme Court Law Review (2d)

20 Pages Posted: 24 May 2012 Last revised: 30 Oct 2013

See all articles by James Stribopoulos

James Stribopoulos

Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) / Formerly Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Date Written: 2009

Abstract

This paper critically evaluates the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decisions in the dog sniff cases: R. v. Kang-Brown and R. v. M. (A.). After briefly assessing the impact of these decisions on the law of search and seizure, the paper considers the significance of the disagreement between the majority and dissent in these cases on the appropriateness of using the ancillary powers doctrine to recognize new “common law” police powers. The paper explains the origins of that doctrine, its operation and the controversy that continues to surround its use as a source of police powers. On this fundamentally important issue, the paper offers a critique of both the majority and dissenting judgments, while also forecasting what may serve to finally resolve this lingering dispute.

Reprinted with the permission of LexisNexis.

Keywords: dog sniff cases, Supreme Court, Canada, search, seizure

JEL Classification: K00, K14, K40, K41, K42, K49

Suggested Citation

Stribopoulos, James, Sniffing Out the Ancillary Powers Implications of the Dog Sniff Cases (2009). 47 Supreme Court Law Review (2d). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2061631

James Stribopoulos (Contact Author)

Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) / Formerly Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

No Address Available

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
87
Abstract Views
409
rank
310,207
PlumX Metrics