Week Eight R.V Feeney (Michael Feeney) PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Week Eight R.V Feeney (Michael Feeney) PDF

Description

Police Powers I Week Eight – R.V Feeney (Michael Feeney)

-

The case of Regina v. Feeney is a landmark or precedent setting case in Canadian law In their ruling of this matter, the SCC of Canada, held that people expect and deserve greater protection of their privacy from the state and its representatives As a result of the R v. Feeney decision, police require a judge’s authorization to enter a dwellinghouse

The “Feeney Warrant” -

The Rule:  People are arrested in 1 of 2 places: 1. Dwelling-house 2. POTDH  A Feeney warrant is required to enter a dwelling-house to arrest a person inside o Even if reasonable grounds exist to arrest  However, exceptions do exist

Background: -

Likely, BC - rural community with a population around 350 people The victim:  Frank Boyle  85-year-old widower  Well-known in his community  Frank was last seen alive the evening before

The Facts: -

-

8:20 am, June 8th, 1991, a neighbour finds Frank Boyle dead on his back in the living room of his house 5 severe blows to the head Extensive blood splatter House ransacked – money, cigarettes and beer were missing Victim’s red Datsun truck was missing, but was found abandoned and crashed at an S curve in the road ½ km away Bloody crowbar found near the truck On June 8th the RCMP interviewed Cindy Potter, who lives near where the Datsun truck was found  Potter said she saw someone she knew only as “Michael” walking on the road at about 6:45am that day, heading away from the Datsun truck  She stated she saw something in his hand – possibly a beer and some kind of stick (possibly crowbar?) The police then spoke with Kelly Spurn

Spurn owned a property that he rented, Dale Russell Spurn also told RCMP that Angela’s brother, Michael Feeney, arrived in town recently and had been staying in a trailer at the back of the property The police then visited the property rented by Dale Russell next  Russell told the police that Feeney took a “joyride” in Russell’s truck the day before and ditched it up the road  He told police Feeney came home around 7am that morning after a night of drinking  

-

The Facts: -

Several people who partied with Feeney the night before (June 7) testified that he had been bumming beer and cigarettes from them because he said, he had no money After interviewing Dale Russell on June 8, the police proceeded to the windowless trailer where Michael Feeney was said to be staying Police did not have a search warrant nor the officers would testify; did they have reasonable grounds to believe Feeney was the murderer Police knocked on the trailer door, there was no answer Sgt. Madrigga enters the trailer

The Evidence: -

-

Upon entering Michael Feeney’s trailer, the police found a pair of shoes with blood on them The soles of the shoes matched shoe prints found at the scene of the crime They also found a package of Sportsman cigarettes The police also seized the blood-splattered t-shirt Michael was wearing at the time When the police asked Michael why there was blood on his shirt, Michael responded, “I got hit in the face with a baseball”  There were no signs of facial injuries when Feeney was arrested Police found Boyle’s empty wallet and Sportsman cigarette butt in Boyle’s residence Police also found Feeney’s fingerprint on the door of Boyle’s refrigerator Police also determined that the blood on the crowbar found beside the Datsun was the same blood type as Frank Boyle’s The police developed another fingerprint on a beer can in the cab of the Datsun  Fingerprint matched that of Michael Feeney

First Trial: -

Michael Feeney was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury in 1992 Crown relied on:  Evidence obtained by the police when they entered and searched Feeney’s trailer and arrested him  Statements made to RCMP by Feeney after arrest

First Appeal – BCCA: -

After he was convicted, Michael Feeney appealed his case to the BC Court of Appeal Argued S.8 and S.10(b) CA rights violated by police and evidence should be ecluded as per S.24(2) CA

-

BCCA: Appeal denied and conviction upheld

Appeal – SCC: -

-

-

Feeney appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada SCC ruled that the evidence found when the police entered the trailer could not be used  S.24(s) Charter Police can not enter dwelling-house to arrest unless they have a reasonable ground belief that the person has committed an offence The officer who entered the trailer testified at trial that he suspected Michael was involved, but that he did not believe he had reasonable grounds to arrest him before entering the trailer The Crown argued that, in spite of the officer’s personal opinion, police actually did have sufficient information to arrest Feeney before they entered his trailer  The Supreme Court disagreed, 5 – 4 decision As a general rule, police cannot enter a home to search it (or arrest a person in it) unless they have a search warrant (and grounds to arrest)  There are a few exceptions to this rule: 1. RG evidence is about to be destroyed 2. RG a person is about to be seriously injured/killed 3. Consent to enter SCC held that none of these conditions existed at the time the police entered Michaels “home” Proper announcement must be made before entering

The SCC Decision: -

-

Charter privacy rights (section 8) require police to obtain prior judicial authorization to enter, unless in exceptional circumstances such as hot pursuit, destruction of evidence or endangerment of life, consent, none of which were present here EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MUST EXIST The minimum four-hour return trip to the nearest RCMP detachment and trip to a justice to obtain a warrant, as well as the fear that gripped the town, did not sway the 5-judge majority Judges ruled detention began when officer touched Feeney’s leg and order him to get out of bed Therefore, should not have been advised of RTC Feeney was not cautioned prior to being questioned and was not given adequate opportunity to obtain a lawyer without delay; accordingly, his 10(b) Charter right was violated

What Happened? -

All the evidence used to convict him was obtained in violation of his Charter rights  The SCC excluded all the evidence found in relation to Feeney’s trailer SCC overturned Feeney’s conviction SCC ordered a new trial Using “new” DNA technology, the RCMP:  Matched saliva from a Sportsman cigarette butt found on victim’s property to Michael Feeney and  Match fingerprints found in victim’s home and on the beer can in the truck to Michael Feeney

-

Upset & Angry: how could 5 unelected & unaccountable judges overrule 8 other judges and quash Feeney’s conviction If individual police officers had done something wrong, couldn’t they be punished? Serious erosion of police powers The Charter of Rights was now considered a murderer’s best friend, nd respect for the Charter plummeted

The Aftermath: -

-

Criminal Code amended to create the “Feeney Warrant” 2 variations:  Form 7 – Arrest Warrant with entry endorsement  Form 7.1 – warrant to enter dwelling-house Creation of the “telewarrant” Available 24/7 – must prove it is impracticable to visit in person

What Happened to Michael Feeney: -

In 1999, on the basis of the new forensic evidence, a jury convicted Michael Feeney of 2 nd degree murder In 2001, Feeney appealed his conviction to the BCCA His appeal was dismissed and his conviction was upheld The Feeney case forever changed police searches and seizures for suspected criminals and evidence Police must now obtain a warrant before entering a dwelling-house Murderers may be freed if police violate their charter rights In law, procedures are as important as the results  The “ends” cannot justify the “means”...