Trial on various charges of possession of drugs for trafficking. Search warrant challenge. Warrant was based, in part, on information provided by an informant. The informant information was “bare bones”, stating that the accused was trafficking in drugs. Limited police surveillance followed, and some “suspicious activity” was noted.

Held: Breach of s. 8, evidence excluded under s. 24(2).

“Is the combination of the weak tip and the suspicious interactions enough? In my view, the answer is no. The search was of a personal residence. Personal residences attach the highest level of privacy … the information provided by the source is very simple and lacks detail … The surveillance discloses ambiguous information; in the absence of the observation of any exchanges, and what was being exchanged, there is merely suspicion.” 24(2) analysis from Hatton, 2011 ABQB 242 adopted.

E. McIntyre – Defence Counsel