The Permissible Length of an Investigative D­­etention

Investigative Detentions and the Constitution

Section 9 of the Charter provides that everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained. A detention will not be arbitrary if it is lawful. 
One type of lawful detention is a common law investigative detention. This power allows the police to detain people for investigation “if there are reasonable grounds to suspect in all the circumstances that the individual is connected to a particular crime and that such detention is necessary.” However, the investigative detention must be “brief in duration” and conducted in a reasonable manner.
R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, at para. 45.

All Investigative Detentions Must Be Brief
The permitted duration of an investigative detention is determined by considering whether the interference with the suspect’s liberty interest by his continuing detention was more intrusive than was reasonably necessary to perform the officer’s duty, having particular regard to the seriousness of the risk to public or individual safety. 

 R. v. Clayton, at para. 31;
R. v. Mann, at p. 324; 
R. v. Aucoin, 2012 SCC 66, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 408, at para. 36.

However, an investigative detention that is not brief cannot be constitutionally sustained.

The purpose of the brief detention contemplated under the investigative detention power is to allow the police to take investigative steps that are readily at hand to confirm their suspicion and arrest the suspect or, if the suspicion is not confirmed, release the suspect.  

R. v. Barclay, 2018 ONCA 114, at para. 29. 

“Brief” describes a range of time, not a precise limit.  While all investigative detentions must be brief, the permitted duration of an investigative detention is case-specific and is informed by a number of factors (set out in R. v. Barclay, 2018 ONCA 114, at paras. 31, 32) including the following:

1.       The intrusiveness of the detention. 
The more intrusive the detention is to the suspect’s liberty interest, the more closely its duration will be scrutinized.

2.      The nature of the suspected criminal offence.

If the suspected offense is not serious, the permitted duration will probably be at the shorter end of “brief”.


3.      The complexity of the investigation.

If the investigation is not complex, one would expect that police questioning of the suspect would not reasonably need to be lengthy, and the permitted duration will probably be at the shorter end of “brief”. However, if the investigation of the suspected criminal offence is complex, its complexity will only justify a longer permitted duration within the range of “brief” to the extent it is causally linked to the duration of the detention.

4.      Any immediate public or individual safety concerns.

 Immediate public or individual safety concerns may justify a permitted duration at the longer end of “brief”.

5.      The ability of the police to effectively carry out the investigation without continuing the detention of the suspect.

 If there are other reasonable means of continuing the investigation without detaining the suspect, the continued detention of the suspect would likely render continued detention unconstitutional.

6.      The lack of police diligence.

7.      The lack of immediate availability of the required investigative tools.


Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more