Entry into Private Dwellings

• While conducting an investigation into a report that four youths had threatened someone with a knife, RCMP officers attended the home of one of the alleged youths. When the mother of the youth answered the door, two of the officers said they were looking for her daughter, passed through the doorway and proceeded into the home in search of the girl. Although repeatedly requested to leave the premises by the girl's father, the officers did not depart until they had spoken with the girl and determined that she was not the person they were seeking.

In this case, the CPC found that the officers entered the private residence without a warrant, that they were not in "hot pursuit" of a fleeing suspect and that they did not have the occupant's consent to be in the home. Accordingly, they did not have lawful authority to enter the residence. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with the finding, issued an apology to the family and had the matter reviewed with the officers to prevent a similar recurrence.

• An RCMP officer attended the home of a man while investigating a parking complaint made by the man's neighbour. When the man answered the door, he was advised of the complaint, whereupon he became very upset and told the officer to leave his property. The officer ignored this request and continued with his investigation, eventually forcibly gaining entry into the man's home.

In this case the CPC found that, while the officer initially had implied licence to enter onto the man's property to conduct his investigation, that licence was withdrawn once the owner asked the officer to leave his property. Without the man's consent to remain on the property and without any grounds for arrest, the officer's entry into the man's home was unlawful. The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the finding, apologized and promised that the officer in question, as well as other members of his detachment, would review the law on police access to private residences.

• In response to a report that a couple had refused to pay a cab fare, the RCMP attended the residence to which the couple had been delivered by the cab. After the officers had repeatedly knocked on the door of the residence and called out to the occupants, the man inside the house yelled to the officers to get off the property. After a further exchange of words, the officers forcibly broke down the door, entered the residence and arrested both the man and woman.

The CPC found that, while the law does permit police to enter residences without a warrant and without consent when pursuing a person believed to have committed an indictable offence, in this case the alleged offence of obtaining transportation by fraud is a summary conviction offence and, accordingly, the officers did not have lawful authority to enter the residence. The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the finding and, in accordance with the CPC's recommendation, agreed to pay for the damage caused to the property and undertook to provide guidance on the lawful authority of peace officers to enter dwellings.

• A dispute developed between a man and the director of a search and rescue team of which he was a member. While discussing the team's activities with another person, the man said, in regard to an upcoming meeting of the team, "Maybe I should just go in with a sawed-off shotgun and blow everyone away." The other person reported these words to the RCMP and also informed the RCMP of the dispute between the man and the director. Two RCMP officers visited the man's residence to ask him to relinquish any firearms in his possession. They did not obtain a search warrant. A friend of the man allowed the officers to enter the residence. After discussion between the officers and the man, the RCMP obtained one firearm in the residence and a second firearm elsewhere. The man contended that the officers had unlawfully entered his residence and had unjustifiably seized his firearms.

The CPC found that the entry into the residence was lawful as consent to enter had been given. The CPC further found that the seizure of the firearms was proper given the reported threatening comments and given that the weapons were relinquished voluntarily by the owner.