In the Stillman case (1997), a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law power to carry out a search incidental to an arrest did not include the right to forcibly seize samples of body substances. The exercise of such a power must comply with 3 conditions: (1) the arrest must be legal; (2) the search must be incidental; (3) the search must be executed in a reasonable manner. Stillman had been the object of a very intrusive search (hair, pubic hair, dental and paper handkerchief impressions) without his consent, the police having applied force to the accused's person. The only evidence not rejected was that connected with the paper handkerchief, since Stillman had not been required to blow his nose. The other evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, according to the 5-4 majority, since it had been obtained against the will of the accused.
-
- MLA 8TH EDITION
- Beaudoin, Gérald A.. "Stillman Case". The Canadian Encyclopedia, 13 February 2015, Historica Canada. www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/stillman-case. Accessed 18 March 2024.
- Copy
-
- APA 6TH EDITION
- Beaudoin, G. (2015). Stillman Case. In The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/stillman-case
- Copy
-
- CHICAGO 17TH EDITION
- Beaudoin, Gérald A.. "Stillman Case." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. Article published February 07, 2006; Last Edited February 13, 2015.
- Copy
-
- TURABIAN 8TH EDITION
- The Canadian Encyclopedia, s.v. "Stillman Case," by Gérald A. Beaudoin, Accessed March 18, 2024, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/stillman-case
- Copy
Thank you for your submission
Our team will be reviewing your submission
and get back to you with any further questions.
Thanks for contributing to The Canadian Encyclopedia.
Closearticle
Stillman Case
Article by Gérald A. Beaudoin
Published Online February 7, 2006
Last Edited February 13, 2015
In the Stillman case (1997), a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law power to carry out a search incidental to an arrest did not include the right to forcibly seize samples of body substances.