The RCMP have been suspicious of some of the activity on Canal Street. They suspect that someone may be operating a crystal meth lab on the street although they cannot pinpoint a specific house. So over one night on the weekly garbage day, at about 4:a. m. an undercover officer travels, disguised as a visually impaired man along the street with a sniffer dog being presented as a guide dog. The dog sniffs some suspicious materials in the garbage can in front of Ned Schneebly’s house Without Mr. Scheebly’s knowledge and without his consent, the RCMP surreptitiously seize drug paraphernalia from the garbage can which they used to obtain a search warrant which they then used to bust in to Mr. Schneebly’s house where they discovered his crystal meth lab. Mr. Schneebly is charged with running the lab and with trafficking in narcotics.
The matter has now gone to trial. What constitutional issue is now at stake? What argument regarding this constitutional issue would you make if you were the lawyer for the Crown? For the defense? How do you think the matter will be decided? Why? Answer in an essay like format