Drug trial. Defence made multiple Charter claims, challenging grounds for arrest, a search warrant, and a strip search; conduct of the strip search; and delay in opportunity to contact counsel. Regarding 10(b), accused when arrested did not request to speak to counsel. Once at station and advised that a strip search would occur, he requested counsel. Police conducted the strip search first. Officer testified that the reason was the fear that the accused might be able to destroy evidence.
The officer “may have had a good faith belief that urgency superseded Mr. Gomez’s rights and that he had no alternatives. There was no evidence given explaining why there were no alternatives. Perhaps he could have provided Mr. Gomez with an opportunity to use a telephone in a manner which would allow him to talk privately but still be observed to ensure that evidence could not be destroyed. Perhaps there were other viable alternatives. Perhaps there were no other viable alternatives. From the evidence, I do not know.” Court also found a s. 8 breach in relation to failures of record-keeping for the strip search. Other Charter claims dismissed.
M. Jordan – Defence Counsel