"DNA evidence is the most dramatic forensic evidence ever discovered- .
It was with those words that Alberta Court of Appeal Judge, Kerens J.A., reaffirmed the second degree murder conviction of Ryan Jason Love for the vicious stabbing of Lucie Turmel. The case of R. v. Love (1995) played a pivotal role in the usage of DNA evidence in courtrooms today. It illustrated the importance of DNA and forensic evidence within the field of law. Since the introduction of fingerprint identification, DNA is probably the most powerful and reliable form of forensic evidence, vital to reach an accurate decision. We have come a long way since 1988, when Canadian courts first experienced DNA evidence in the case of R. v. Parent (1988). There was controversy then, and there is controversy now. Charter right violations and issues concerning privacy have often been raised in courtrooms, whenever DNA evidence was used. The most recent case of R. v. S.A.B. (2003), serves as a perfect example portraying the general unwillingness amongst Canadians to accept DNA evidence completely. Canadians are disinclined to allowing the government to infringe upon their rights, even if the infringement is of the most minimal of nature. Fact is that the Canadian law is a living tree and the case of R. v. S.A.B. reflects our governments need to apply utilitarianism that is justifiable by the Charter. Our society was set up on the principles of utilitarianism, and like it was proven in the R. v. S.A.B. case, the government can be justified in infringing upon individual rights so as to further their goals of protecting society. This paper will use the case of R. v. S.A.B. to demonstrate that the government is justified in infringing on individual rights so as to promote utilitarianism. The paper will support the Supreme Court's decision in the case of R. v. S.A.B. by showing that the DNA warrant provisions, in pith and substance, promote utilitarianism.