Across the Rubicon and into the Apennines: Privacy and Common Law Police Powers after A.M. and Kang-Brown

(2009), 55 Criminal Law Quarterly 239

42 Pages Posted: 6 Oct 2013

See all articles by Jane Bailey

Jane Bailey

University of Ottawa - Common Law Section

Date Written: 2009

Abstract

In A.M and Kang Brown the Supreme Court of Canada both answered some of the questions surrounding whether odours emanating from individuals' belongings are constitutionally protected from police sniffer dogs and raised other questions about the future of privacy and common law police powers in Canada. This article examines the judgments in A.M. and Kang Brown, with an emphasis on the lines of reasoning relating to two issues: the reasonable expectation of privacy and the standard underlying common law search powers. The author suggests that these Supreme Court of Canada decisions seem to give with one hand while taking away with the other; while offering enhanced opportunities for protecting reasonable expectations of privacy by insisting that the inquiry be placed in context, the decisions also appear to expand common law police powers outside of matters involving threats to public safety.

Keywords: A.M., Kang Brown, Supreme Court of Canada, individual belongings, constitutional, police, sniffer dogs, privacy, common law, police powers, search powers, public safety, threats

Suggested Citation

Bailey, Jane, Across the Rubicon and into the Apennines: Privacy and Common Law Police Powers after A.M. and Kang-Brown (2009). (2009), 55 Criminal Law Quarterly 239. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2336211

Jane Bailey (Contact Author)

University of Ottawa - Common Law Section ( email )

57 Louis Pasteur Street
Ottawa, K1N 6N5
Canada
613-562-5800 ext. 2364 (Phone)
613-562-5124 (Fax)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
19
Abstract Views
356
PlumX Metrics