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.