This case continues to puzzle me. Shemina Cheema (formerly Shemina Hirji) was murdered in her home in Burnaby, British Columbia. According to her husband Paul Cheema, three intruders broke into the home. During the confrontation, Shemina was murdered, but Paul was not harmed.

The police have not revealed the cause of death.

Paul and Shemina were just five days married. They were married at hotel, since Paul being a Sikh and Shemina being a Muslim meant some tension in having a religious ceremony in a temple or a mosque.

Now police have executed a search warrant of the Shemina Hirji crime scene:

As her family and friends prepared to attend the funeral for slain elementary school principal Shemina Hirji, Mounties executed a new search warrant at the townhome where she was killed.

Burnaby RCMP Cpl. Jane Baptista said the property was secured at the request of the RCMP's integrated homicide unit.

Police aren't saying anything more about why they're back in the house.

Now getting a search warrant to investigate a crime scene is not really unusual, but it is significant. In 1984, the United States Supreme Court ruled evidence collected during an "exploratory search" of a crime scene had to be thrown out. A woman had shot her husband and then took an overdose of pills. She survived the suicide attempt and was charged with murder based on evidence found during a secondary search of the home. When the first deputies arrived, they correctly searched the home for other victims then secured the scene. When the homicide detectives arrived a half-hour later, they searched the house a second time but without a warrant. They found the murder weapon, as well as other evidence.

But since they didn't have a search warrant, the evidence was thrown out.

Case law stretching back to 1978 holds that a crime scene that is also a location in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy is not exempt from Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search. US law enforcement routinely prepare generic search warrants listing the sorts of things being searched for based on the sort of crime being investigated (searching for flammables in the case of an arson, for instance, and any knives in the case of a stabbing).

It would appear that either Canadian law is similar, or the RCMP are smart enough not to want to put a crime scene search not covered by a warrant to the test.

All of this is interesting, but it also avoids the real question.

Just what do the investigators believe that they will find at the Cheema home that will be presented in court during a prosecution? As a stranger entering a home univited, I have no expectation of privacy for material I leave behind.

Maybe I'm wrong on this point of law. Say I break into a home and kill someone in the living room. I go into the kitchen for a sandwich, then make good my escape but leave my wallet on the counter behind the mustard. During a search of the house beyond the living room, the police find my wallet and try to enter it into evidence. Can I argue that as a private residence, that I have an expectation of privacy that covers the litter I leave behind, even though it isn't even my house and I was not an invited nor a welcome guest? Or is it up to the surviving owner of the home to challenge the admissibility of my wallet as evidence? And why would he?

On the other hand, Paul Cheema would definitely have an expectation of privacy for his own belongings in the home.

During a trial, Paul Cheema's property could be inadmissible as evidence unless it was collected under the authority of a search warrant.

But then why would Paul Cheema's property serve as evidence in a court case? What connection would it have to the three strangers who entered the home and committed this crime? And if it was somehow connected, why would police be concerned that Cheema would challenge its admissibility if the evidence helped convict the three strangers of the crime of murdering his wife?

We might not have to wait long to answer these questions:

[IHIT spokesman Cpl. Dale Carr] said police are still seeking the three male suspects, and that they are satisfied the investigation is moving forward quickly.

"Daily we're getting new information on this investigation," Carr told Global News. "As investigators we're happy with the progress."

New information and progress. Good to hear.

Check out other entries from the Shemina Hirji category
Results will open in a new window.

Check out what Canadian bloggers have posted about Shemina Hirji
Results will open in a new window.

Check out what has been written about Shemina Hirji on the web
Results will open in a new window.

Check out other entries from the True Crime category
Results will open in a new window.