Searches Incident to Detention
Common Law Searches
To determine whether a search is
authorized by the common law, a court must determine:
(1) whether the police conduct in
issue falls within the general scope of any duty imposed on the officer by any
statute or common law, and
(2) whether, in the circumstances, the police
conduct involved a justifiable use of the powers associated with the engaged
duty.
R. v. Waterfield, [1964] 1 Q.B. 164;
R. v. Godoy, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311,
at para. 12.
Searches incident to investigative detention
One line of jurisprudence
concerning when a search is justifiable arises from searches conducted pursuant
to an investigative detention. In R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, the Supreme
Court established the following four requirements.
1. The
police officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect in all the circumstances
that the individual is connected to a particular crime and that such a
detention is necessary: Mann, at para.
45.
2. The
police officer is entitled to search the individual detained for a weapon where
the officer has a reasonable belief that his safety “or the safety of others…is
at risk”: Mann, at paras. 40, 43, 45. The
Supreme Court cited with approval the decision in Minnesota
v. Dickerson (1993), 508 U.S. 366, at
p. 373-74, which describes the objective of a valid protective search as
extending to “bystanders”. The decision to search cannot be premised on
hunches, mere intuition, or a vague or non-existent concern for safety, rather,
the officer, “is required to act on reasonable and specific inferences drawn
from the known facts of the situation”. The search must also be confined in
scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to locate weapons: Mann, at paras. 40-41.
3. The
search must be conducted in a reasonable manner: Mann,
at paras. 45.
4. The
investigative detention should be brief and the individual detained is not
obliged to answer questions: Mann, at para.
45. Questions during the detention may, depending on the circumstances, amount
to a search and seizure of information.
R. v. Lee, 2017 ONCA 654.
A search incidental to an
investigative detention is defined and limited by the immediate concerns of
officer safety. This reflects an important difference between the narrowly focused
and strictly limited protective search that may accompany an investigative
detention, and the broader power to search consequent to a lawful arrest. It is
necessary to maintain that distinction and to confine the scope of a search
incidental to an investigative detention within strict limits.
See R. v. Plummer, 2011 ONCA 350, 272
C.C.C. (3d) 172, at para. 76.
[In R. v. Plummer, 2011 ONCA 350, 272
C.C.C. (3d) 172 a police officer conducted a pat-down search and then conducted
a more extensive search of the suspect’s vehicle for weapons after the pat-down
revealed the suspect was wearing a bulletproof vest. The Court of Appeal for
Ontario held that search was a valid use of the power to search incidental to
an investigative detention.]
Stuart
O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca
Comments
Post a Comment