You have to vote ultimately for the rights of the citizen over police efficiency, but you can’t get much of a handle on whether the legal balance is just or sensible without taking a look as the myriad legal decisions that define that balance. Before our Charter-inspired aping of the Americans, I believe the rule was that you could sue or seek discipline for an illegal search, but not exclude the illicit fruits of such a search from evidence. It isn’t at all clear to me why it’s a good idea that you can now, although I would concede dogmatism isn’t terribly helpful on this one. The criminal justice system is certainly supposed to safeguard the individual from the arbitrary acts of the much more powerful state, but it isn’t supposed to be a chess game.

re: “…“How can we say that it is more important to condemn Charter breaches than to prosecute, for example, a child murderer?” she asked…”

Bernardo/Homolka (wow I forget how to spell her name) comes to mind.

Having said that, if I remember correctly, there are occasions where the Police Act allows an individual police officer to warn or ignore an individual’s action or conduct, if said Police Officer believes no public interest is served by enforcing the law which would be prosecuted as a summary offence. A summary offence is the key word here. Indictable offences for murder, rape, etc., are not subject to discretionary powers of the state’s enforcers.

For example, blasphemy laws are still included in the criminal code but are currently not enforced. I doubt you could find a sitting court criminal justice who would not take great offense at having to preside over a blasphemy trial for a man cursing Jesus on a public street – although I would expect a cop might choose to charge the individual with causing a disturbance in a public place instead. I know in Ontario, depending on the nature of the offence, you can plea guilty with an explanation, and avoid either conviction or penalty providing you prove to a justice you had ‘just cause’ to break the law.

I have very little sympathy for the crown counsel’s position because it gives legal license for individual police officers of the state to change the nature of their role at their sole discretion with no judicial oversight and regardless of the nature of the offence. Now in the case before the Supreme Court, it may well be defendant will walk, but the public interest is still being served by the illegal seizure of cocaine as no justice will order the police to return a illegal substance to the defendant, and therefore, the potential harm to the ‘public good’ which the distribution of that cocaine could have caused, is still be circumvented.

Legal/illegal however doesn’t count in my thinking except as a factor in risk assessment, ever.

It’s one thing to break a *law*. It’s another to violate a right.

Your main question is tougher to answer.
I am inclined to say no as well on principle, but if it is really that clear cut you have to wonder why we are still arguing about it.
I appreciate that it can be a tough call for a cop with a suspicion that a serious crime is being committed, perhaps by someone that is “known to police” for other criminal activities.
So as a law abiding citizen, all be it in a stretchy kind of way, I have to figure that in my own best interests I would prefer the cop to intervene if the supposed crime was indeed serious but a breach of charter rights was necessary to prevent it. Not a dope bust that’s going to be thrown out of court but a violent crime of some sort.
If there was a violent crime being committed then we hope it would have been prevented by the officer’s actions even though the criminal charges might be dismissed later.
I wonder how many times a citizen’s charter rights are breached and no incriminating evidence is found? How much of a problem is it in fact?
Where do RIDE programs figure into this?