|
''R v Dyment'', () 2 S.C.R. 417 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right to privacy under section 8 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. ==Background== In April 1982, Brandon Dyment was in an auto accident on a highway. A doctor soon came to the scene, and he was taken to the hospital by a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer. At the hospital a blood sample was taken from him for medical purposes while unconscious. When Dyment woke up, and while still suffering from a concussion from the accident, he told the doctor that he had been drinking and had taken antihistamine tablets. The doctor talked with RCMP officer and handed over the blood sample. Police analysis of the blood found that the alcohol level was above the legal limit and so Dyment was charged with being in care or control of a motor vehicle having consumed alcohol in such quantity that the proportion in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood contrary to section 236 of the Criminal Code. At trial, Dyment was convicted. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether: # the taking of possession of the blood sample by the police officer amounted to a seizure as contemplated by s. 8 of the Charter; # taking of the sample was unreasonable and so infringed s. 8; # in excluding the evidence of the analysis of the blood under s. 24(2) of the Charter on the ground that the admission of this evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Dyment」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|