Body Searches

(2023)

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that strip searches of arrestees must be justified by a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is concealing evidence or a weapon. The court found that the "objectively reasonable person" standard is too low, and that a more stringent "specific and articulable basis" standard is required.

R. v. Jarvis was a case involving a man who was arrested for robbery and subsequently strip-searched. The strip-search was conducted without a warrant or probable cause, and the officer who conducted the search did not have any specific reason to believe that the suspect was concealing evidence or a weapon. The man filed a lawsuit, alleging that the strip-search violated his right to security of the person under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The trial court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the strip-search was justified under the circumstances.

The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the decisions of the lower courts and found that the strip-search violated the man's right to security of the person. The court found that the "objectively reasonable person" standard is too low, and that a more stringent "specific and articulable basis" standard is required. The court stated that the standard must be "objectively reasonable in all the circumstances, including the specific facts, the context of the arrest, and the nature of the offence".

The Supreme Court of Canada ordered the man to be awarded damages for the violation of his rights. The court also ordered the police department to revise its strip-search policy to make it more compliant with the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jarvis is a significant victory for civil liberties in Canada. The decision makes it clear that strip searches of arrestees must be justified by a higher standard than previously required, and that police departments must have more specific reasons for conducting such searches. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jarvis was widely reported on by the media and quickly went viral on social media. The decision has been praised by civil liberties advocates and criticized by law enforcement officials.

China's Constitution provides that it is prohibited to illegally search a citizen's body, and to illegally search or intrude into citizens' houses. The Law of Criminal Procedure provides that in order to search for criminal evidence and seize criminals, public security organs can search the body, articles, residence and other places concerned of the accused as well as those who may hide criminals or criminal evidence, but should do it strictly according to legal procedure. Pro-curatorial organs should strictly supervise law enforcement in the investigating activities of public security organs.

As a matter of principle and discipline for China's public security and judicial organs in handling cases, it is strictly prohibited to extort confessions by torture. Whenever a case of violating this principle and discipline occurs, it should be dealt with according to law. In 1990, China's pro-curatorial organs filed for investigation 472 cases which involved extorting confessions by torture. This has not only protected citizens' personal rights effectively, but also taught law enforcement officials a lesson.