B.C. RCMP guns, drugs and cash seizure thrown out by nation's highest court

If police enter someone's home without a warrant only to discover a trove of guns and illegal drugs, does the severity of the evidence trump that person's charter rights? That was the question at the heart of a Supreme Court of Canada decision Friday.

RCMP alerted by smell of pot should have obtained a warrant before entering Langley man's home, says judge

The Supreme Court of Canada is seen in Ottawa on Thursday, March 19, 2015. The court ruled to dismass the case of a Langley, B.C., man after officers entered his home without a warrant. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

Is the smell of marijuana emanating from a home enough evidence to allow police to enter without a search warrant and uncover a trove of guns and illegal drugs? 

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a strong defence of privacy rights in the home, said no, dismissing convictions against Langley, B.C., resident Brendan Patterson, who was caught with four loaded guns and large stashes of cocaine, methamphetamine and ecstasy.

Although two of the seven judges disagreed, the majority ruled in favour of the sanctity of the home.  

Smell of pot alerts police 

Writing for the majority, Justice Russell Brown described how on Nov. 30, 2007, Langley RCMP were directed to Paterson's home after responding to a 911 call from a woman who was "crying and apparently injured."

When they arrived, one of the constables noted the smell of "raw and smoked" marijuana. 

Paterson eventually admitted to having three roaches on hand.

"The officers explained that they would have to seize the roaches, but that they would treat this as a 'no case' seizure, meaning that they intended to seize the roaches without charging him," wrote Justice Brown. 

In his judgment, Justice Russell Brown said the officers went into Paterson's residence after they smelled 'raw and smoked' marijuana. (iStock)

Brown goes on to explain that Paterson then tried to close the door before getting the roaches for the officers, but one of them blocked it with his foot "out of concern that the appellant would destroy the roaches, and for 'officer safety."'

According to the judgment, this last concern was driven in part by the 911 call, during which the crying woman's mother had warned police Paterson had a shotgun. 

Drugs, guns and cash

Two officers followed Paterson into his home, wrote Brown, and saw a bulletproof vest on the couch, a handgun on an end table, and a bag of pills one of them believed was ecstasy.  

The officers then phoned for a warrant and later discovered more drugs, more guns and tens of thousands of dollars in cash. 

Paterson was convicted on nine charges in 2012. He appealed that decision in B.C. Supreme Court, but the appeal was dismissed. 

Brown points out in his judgment, police can enter a home without a warrant if there are "exigent circumstances" that make it impractical to get a warrant, if there is a need for urgency, or if there is a risk of evidence being destroyed or a risk to officer or public safety.

But in this case, the officers stated they intended to destroy the evidence anyway, thereby removing that urgency, according to the judgment. 

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against police entering someone's home without a warrant.

"If, as the Crown says, the situation was not serious enough to arrest and apply for a warrant, then it cannot have been serious enough to intrude into a private residence without a warrant," wrote Brown.

"Concern for officer safety did not drive the decision to proceed with warrantless entry; rather warrantless entry gave rise to concern for officer safety."

Split-second decision

Supt. Murray Power, the officer in charge of Langley RCMP, says he respects the court's decision but understands why the officers made the decision that they did.

"As soon as I read [the decision] and I was reading the circumstances, I could put myself in our members' position and knew exactly why they did what they did," Power said.

Police officers often have to quickly make decisions, Power says, and part of the job is those decisions later being analyzed in court — in this case, over a 10-year period. 

The judges did highlight, as did Power, that the officers appeared to be operating in good faith. 

Part of the reason for that emphasis, which was also highlighted in the judgment, is the fact that the case is a first of its kind — with "no case" seizures being a bit of a grey zone. 

Sanctity of the home

Caily DiPuma with the BCCLA says the case sets an important precedent. 

"The BCCLA is very pleased that the court has clarified the law around no-case seizures and affirmed the sanctity of Canadians' homes when it comes to police searches of their property," said DiPuma.

Caily DiPuma is the acting litigation director at the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. (Caily DiPuma)

While no one disputes the severity of the charges, she says, the officers "need to do their job within the confines of the Charter."

In the judgment, Brown admits the decision was a close call, given the charges. 

"While the effective destruction of the Crown's case weighs heavily, so does the warrantless entry into a private residence," he wrote. 

"The police conduct, while not egregious, represented a serious departure from well established constitutional norms."

About the Author

Maryse Zeidler


Maryse Zeidler is a reporter for CBC News in Vancouver, covering news from across British Columbia. You can reach her at maryse.zeidler@cbc.ca.


To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.

By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.