Also it will prove that the DNA warrant provisions are constitutional in nature and it will show that the infringements on S.A.B.'s individual rights are minimal and can be justified under section 1 of the Charter.
.
DNA EVIDENCE AND JEREMY BENTHAM'S PRINCIPLE OF UTILITARIANISM:.
Lucie Turmel was a Banff cab driver who was severely beaten, robbed and left to die. When cops found Lucie's cab, they found a substantial amount of blood in the back seat. Upon analysis, they found out that not all the blood belonged to her. The police asked one of their suspects, Ryan Jason Love for a sample for comparison but he refused. This led the cops to go undercover and gain DNA evidence from Love, without Love's knowledge. Analysis confirmed that Love's genetic profile matched the profile of the blood found in Turmel's cab. DNA analysis helped solve an otherwise unsolvable crime. It was then that DNA evidence ensued in having a very important role in criminal law. The court system was for the first time shown the truly positive impact DNA evidence can have in procuring an outcome that is exact and accurate, leaving very little room for any errors. The system of DNA analysis is relatively flawless, and using DNA as evidence in criminal cases would help serve a very important objective which is to further the government's goal of achieving safety and the good of the community. That is the main principle upon which our forefathers built our legal justice system and our society in general. In the case of R. v. S.A.B. (2003), the constitutionality of the usage of DNA evidence was questioned. The case was threatening the further usage of DNA evidence in future cases. S.A.B.'s lawyer argued that sections 487.04 - 487.09 of the criminal code were in violation of Section 7 and 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and hence the outlined sections were unconstitutional. Basically S.A.B. and his lawyer were arguing that the criminal law as it related to the search and seizure of DNA evidence, and irrevocably the case, was bad.