On this issue I prefer the reasoning of McEachern, C.J.S.C., in Sieger and Avery v. Barker et al. (1982), 27 C.R.(3d) 91 (B.C.S.C.). The warrant in itself is not defective on the basis of the address it au thorizes to search but it does not permit the search of another address. If another address is searched, that is a warrantless search. Whether the evidence seized in such a warrantless search is to be allowed at trial is a decision for the trial judge to make. That, however, is not a ground on which to quash the warrant.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.