FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 9,359 times | Saved to 291 briefcases
R v. Mann , [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59

Facts:

Police officers got a dispatch about B&E. Went to seen saw man that fit description nearby. Asked him questions/he agreed to pat down search/found weed and pills/charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking

Issue(s):

1. Is there a common police power to detain an individual person for the purpose of investigation?

2. Is a warrantless search incident to investigative detention in violation of s.8?

Ratio:

1. A officer must have reasonable and probable grounds to detain someone (articulable cause).

2. A police officer may engage in a pat down search if he has reasonable grounds to believe that his or someone else’s safety is at risk. It must be conducted in a reasonable manner.

Analysis:

FIRST ISSUE
Waterfield Test – Used in Deadman
1. Does it fall within scope of police?
**a. Police Conduct.
**b. Whether an invasion of individual rights is necessary in order to perform their duty.
2. If so, Was use of power unjustified? (Was it a justified use of police power associated with the duty?).
**a. If the detaining officer had some articulable cause (R v. Simpson (1993)) – Must have articulable cause.
***i. Reasonable grounds to suspect was equivalent to articulable cause standard - “reasonable grounds to detain” .
***ii. Must be some nexus between this person and the offence – particularize suspicion.
***iii. Was the detention reasonable necessary in the detention? (Must have this to meet the 2nd prong of the test).
****1. Extent the interference with individual liberty is necessary to perform the officers duty
****2. The liberty interfered with
****3. Nature and extent of the interference

SECOND ISSUE
There is a distinction between search incidental to arrest and search incidental to an investigative detention.
A search as part of an investigative detention is appropriate if: (limit on search) -Collin:
**1. The officer has reasonable grounds to believe that his safety or that of others is at risk.
**2. The search must be reasonably necessary in the totality of the circumstances.
**3. The search must be confined in scope to the location of weapons or other threats to safety

Holding:

The officer had reasonable grounds to detain Mann.

The seizure of the weed was unlawful.

Comments:

When trying to determine if a police officer acted within their common law power use the Waterfield Test


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.