R v Nickason and Lothrop, 2004 BCPC 316

Defendants are charged with four counts of causing or permitting animals to be in distress, contrary to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The defendants challenged the form of the warrant issued that lead to the charges being laid. In addition, the defendant’s asserted that the search was executed in an unreasonable fashion.

Finding that the description of the place to be searched on the warrant was not specific enough, the Court held that the search should be categorized as warrantless, and therefore unreasonable. Furthermore, the Court held that the presence of photographers and video camera operators could not be justified as being within the scope of the warrant, as these actions were not required to relieve the animals’ distress. Accordingly, some of the evidence obtained pursuant the search warrant was found to be inadmissible at trial.

Source: Case Law

Jurisdiction: British Columbia

Topics: defectivedistressevidencefanfarehorseslimit the use of assistantssearchsearch warrantunreasonable search or seizurewarrantless search

Report a Broken Link