What is the current state of the law on a common law search and seizure?

In Stillman Cory J observed at para 39 that “completely different considerations arise where the search and seizure infringes upon a person’s bodily integrity, which may constitute the ultimate affront to human dignity” and at para 42 when he stated that “higher standards of justification” were required for bodily searches and, in consequence: The common law power cannot be so broad as to empower police officers to seize bodily samples. They are usually in no danger of disappearing. Here, there was no likelihood that the appellant’s teeth impressions would change, nor that his hair follicles would present a different DNA profile with the passage of time. There was simply no possibility of the evidence sought being destroyed if it was not seized immediately. It should be remembered that one of the limitations to the common law power articulated in Cloutier v. Langlois, supra, was the discretionary aspect of the power and that it should not be abusive. The common law power of search incidental to arrest cannot be so broad as to encompass the seizure without valid statutory authority of bodily samples in the face of a refusal to provide them. If it is, then the common law rule itself is unreasonable, since it is too broad and fails to properly balance the competing rights involved (Stillman at para 49).