Decide whether there is a breach of s.8 rights.

• Discuss why or why not, and if it is hard to say or could go either way, discuss why it is unclear. Use the following questions as your guide:
  • Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy (REP) in the area, object, information or person searched? Remember that if there is no REP then there is no search and the analysis stops there.
  • If there is REP, was it waived (via consent, plain view, or abandonment) or were there other special circumstances to reduce the expectation of privacy? If there is REP, then unless it is waived or the facts support an exception, police generally need a warrant.
  • Was the search reasonably carried out?

SCENARIO 1: A security guard pulls aside Sally as she is entering a concert venue. They ask her to open her purse and see nothing inside but her wallet and some makeup. They ask her to unzip a side compartment and see a small packet of unidentified pills. The security guard takes the packet, pointing to a sign stating "zero tolerance: no drugs" and makes her wait in the security office while they call the police. When the police arrive, the security guard turns the packet over to the officer, saying the venue has had a problem with drug selling among concertgoers and that Sally fits the profile of patrons who sell ecstasy at concerts. The officer tells Sally she is coming to the station for questioning, but first, she has to make sure Sally isn't hiding any more pills: they go into a private office and the officer makes Sally take off her shirt, pants and shoes to check for pills before taking her to the station. Should police have to get a warrant to receive the pills from the security guard? Was the strip search reasonable? Would police have been able to get a warrant for either action?

SCENARIO 2: Police receive a 911 call at 2am from a disposable phone saying that a person has been stabbed at a particular address. The caller hangs up without identifying himself. Two officers arrive at the address and no one answers when they knock on the door. They walk around the outside of the house, and see lights on in the basement. They knock again, and a woman answers with a crying baby on her hip: she says no one is injured there. They ask if they can come in. The baby is crying more loudly and the woman says "whatever, be quick about it" and leaves the door open as she turns to take the child to the kitchen for a bottle. One officer follows her to the kitchen while the other goes to check the basement: the door has an open padlock on it, which he removes. In the basement, he discovers equipment commonly used to cook crystal meth. No injured person is found. Were the police justified in entering the house without a warrant? Did the occupants of the house have a REP in what was in the basement? Would police have been able to get a warrant?

SCENARIO 3: A 10-year-old child is abducted on her way home from a friend's house a couple of blocks from her home and a few days later is found murdered and some DNA evidence thought to belong to the murderer is gathered from her body. Police go door to door asking every adult in a five-block radius from where the girl disappeared to provide DNA (a cheek swab) so that they can be ruled out as suspects. Three people refuse to give the sample. Police then set up covert surveillance on these people, and when they take out the trash, police seize the trash bag in order to retrieve anything that would have DNA on it. One of these three people ends up being a DNA match and is arrested for murder. Are these tactics a violation of s. 8? Would they have been able to get a warrant to take a DNA swab without consent?