CLU 3M R v Buhay case study

R v. Buhay Answer Key

1.Yes Buhay did have an expectation of privacy.

He had the contract for rental and use of locker for specific amount of time.

He had control of contents due to key.

No right to search it unless the locker contained something that posed a threat to the bus depot’s security. (No sign on the locker that mentions that the lockers could get searched.)

2.This statement is why the Court of appeal felt they could convict Buhay. They felt that the search did not violate his s8 rights because the guards were privately employed.

When private guards found pot, they were merely “transferring control of it” to the police.

No search and seizure violation by police mean that the evidence could be admissible.

3.Supreme Court acquitted Buhay. One can agree with this or not.

4.An appellant is the person appealing their case to a higher court after losing in a lower court.

5.The actual charge was possession for the purposes of trafficking.

6.Two other similar cases are: R v Feeney and R v AM and R v Tessling. They all relate to seach and privacy rights.