What rights does a detained person have to consult counsel on a search warrant?

103. Although the unconstitutionality of the search renders the search per se unreasonable, I would add that the manner in which the search was conducted in this case was also unreasonable in light of the values and purposes protected by s. 8 of the Charter. It is, in my view, unreasonable for a detained person to be simply directed to a sign on the wall of a search room setting out the legal provisions which authorize the search of his or her person. It is hardly surprising on the facts of this case that there is no indication that the appellant even read the provisions of ss. 143 and 144 of the Customs Act posted on the wall let alone exercised the legal options and rights conferred in those provisions. A person who is detained and about to be searched can hardly be expected to be his or her own lawyer. Recourse to legal assistance in such circumstances will often be essential in order to ensure that citizens are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures: see Hunter v. Southam Inc., 1984 CanLII 33 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, at p. 160. If the appellant had been informed of her right to consult counsel, counsel could have explained to her the right under s. 144 of the Customs Act to request higher authorization for the search and advised her as to whether or not she should exercise it. This would have furthered the purpose of s. 8 in preventing unreasonable searches. As the circumstances of this case show, the right to counsel could be highly useful in facilitating the effective and fair operation of the statutory search provisions, in particular the higher authorization procedure provided for in s. 144. In this case the appellant's right to counsel was not respected and, not surprisingly, her rights under s. 144 were not exercised.