The Appendix did not disclose the name of the CI.After an exchange of questions with the Crown which were sealed in the court file, the trial judge released the Summary: The Crown then moved under Step 6 of Garofoli to have the trial judge prepare and release a Judicial Summary of the redacted portions of the Appendix.
#Confidential informant number lookup full#
The CI gave the accused’s address and full name. The Appendix disclosed that the CI told the police that the accused was a meth dealer, that the accused sold large amounts of the drug and that the CI purchased meth from the accused. Upon application by the defence, the Crown provided the second Appendix that was only partially redacted. The defence argued that there were no reasonable grounds for the issuance of the warrant, and added that the second Appendix inaccurately described the offence being investigated. When the second Appendix was disclosed to the defence, it was completely redacted.Īt trial, the accused argued that the search violated section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sought the quashing of the search warrant and the exclusion of the evidence obtained. The search warrant was executed and the accused was charged with possession of crystal meth for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by a crime.
Another Appendix to the ITO listed possession of powdered cocaine. The information provided from the Informant and sought by police was particularized in an Appendix to the ITO and included methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Police obtained a search warrant under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act for the accused’s residence based on an Information to Obtain that relied on information from a Confidential Informant.
0 kommentar(er)
