# 1 in 7 Manitoba search warrants in study has serious flaws



## putz (23 Sep 2017)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/search-warrants-manitoba-1.4284574



> One in seven search warrants in a Manitoba study was so flawed that it should never have been issued, says an unpublished copy of the study that was obtained by CBC News.
> 
> Problems included overly broad requests and cash seizures with no proof the money was derived from criminal activity. In a number of cases, warrants were granted despite deficiencies in more than one area.
> 
> ...


----------



## klacquement (24 Sep 2017)

> Newman said it's common to find warrants where officers failed to file the report to a justice.



This sounds like it's as much the court's fault as the police. Don't they follow up on the warrants they sign?


----------



## JesseWZ (30 Sep 2017)

lacqui said:
			
		

> This sounds like it's as much the court's fault as the police. Don't they follow up on the warrants they sign?



The short answer is... sort of. Persons who execute a warrant are required to file a Report To Justice stating if and when the warrant was executed and what they seized. These are often forgotten however. I've personally not seen a Report to Justice issue come up in a trial, but I'm only one man, so it could happen. I don't believe the RtJ's are reviewed very thoroughly, but the issue in question isn't what is occurring after the warrant is issued, it is to do with the warrant itself. 

Now comes the long answer:

(Most) Warrant Applications must satisfy on *reasonable grounds* (more on this later) 3 things:

a. an offence was committed!
b. the items in question (to be searched for) will provide evidence to that offence!; and
c. the items are believed to be at the place you are requesting to look for them. 

A JP is to review the warrant application (known as an Information to Obtain and it's attached Appendixes) which are often quite lengthy. Even simple Search Warrant applications can include over 10 pages of text. The JP is to evaluate your reasonable grounds and decide whether they exist in order to issue the warrant. Many warrants are returned unsigned requiring more information or because they contain errors of fact. 

So, to sum up part 1, the first test of a warrant is the JP. Some are good, some are bad (just like in everything else). Some will sign near anything. Good JPs will fairly evaluate your grounds to ensure you aren't bit later in court.

Let's say a JP just signed a warrant which was faulty (which did not contain the requisite grounds)... there is a solution. Despite the defence attorneys whinging in the article, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the caveat that charter breaches can result in the tossing of evidence (which likely will result in an acquittal) or even an acquittal itself. This exists as a check and balance against government (ie police) overreach when executing flawed warrants. 
The warrant gets tested in court. It is laid before the judge, who will decide, based on the information contained within the warrant, whether your RPG existed, or whether you may have misled, omitted, or been just plain wrong. 
The warrant affiant will be the one called to court to testify to the warrant, not the JP. (as far as I know, they get a free pass, but I could be wrong). Knowingly swearing to a flawed warrant leaves serious credibility questions both inside and outside the courtroom. A police officer being found not credible by a judge is a *bad thing.* If the warrant checks out, great! Evidence admitted, and everyone is happy, and hopefully the bad guy gets convicted! If the warrant is found to be fatally flawed, the evidence can get tossed, bad guy gets his legal stuff back (illegal things like child porn, illegal guns, drugs, will still be destroyed) and usually walks away a free man. 

I hope this reply was helpful (if lengthy).


----------

