In May of 1991 while investigating the murder of Frank Boyle the police entered the home of their prime suspect, Michael Feeney. Though evidence gathered after the fact proved that Feeney did in fact kill Boyle it did not change that the police had illegally entered his home, thus violating his charter rights. This led to a seven year long legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. After deliberating on the issue the Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have reasonable grounds to enter Feeney’s home without a warrant. Due to this decision all evidence from Feeney’s home and his confession were excluded from evidence and a new trial was ordered. The Supreme Court’s ruling in R. v. Feeney led to changes in the Criminal Code and in the way police work. …show more content…
v. Feeney and the claims the police made that there was not time to obtain a warrant several amendments were made to the Criminal Code. One of which was the introduction of Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Interpretation Act (powers to arrest and enter dwellings), S.C. 1997, ch. 39 was introduced. The purpose of Bill C-16 was to establish guidelines for obtaining a warrant authorizing entry into a private dwelling for the purposes of arrest or apprehension of suspects or accused. (Marilyn) These new guidelines would make more discernable in what situations officers would need a warrant to enter a dwelling-house, and in what situations they would not. Also, section 529.5 was amended to include “telewarrants” that could be issued when officers felt it would be impractical, at the time, to appear in front of a judge or justice. This was beneficial to police because it made it easier and less time consuming to obtain a warrant, especially in cases when time was of the