Digest: R v Duong, 2018 SKCA 25

• Date: April 04, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKCA 25

Docket Number: CACR 2963 , CA17136

Court: Court of Appeal

Date: 2018-04-04

Judges:

• Ottenbreit
• Herauf
• Ryan-Froslie

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Appeal � Conviction
• Controlled Drugs and Substances Act � Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking
• Criminal Procedure � Reasonable Suspicion

Digest: The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cannabis marihuana for the purposes of trafficking. An officer checked the plates of the vehicle the appellant was driving on the highway, noting a conviction for cultivation and that the vehicle was linked to a prohibited driver. The officer pulled the vehicle over to check the status of the driver. The appellant was the sole occupant of the vehicle. The officer ran checks on the appellant and learned that he was not a prohibited driver, but had been convicted of marihuana cultivation and arrested, but not charged, in relation to a trafficking investigation. The officer considered the appellant�s nervous behaviour and observed of a billfold of cash wrapped in an elastic band in the vehicle. He detained the appellant for a drug investigation and gave him his rights and standard police warning. The officer deployed the drug detection dog that was travelling with him. When the dog indicated that there were drugs in the trunk, the officer arrested the appellant for possession of a controlled substance and gave him his rights and warnings again. He then searched the vehicle and located 50 lbs of marihuana, vacuum-sealed in half-pound bags. At trial, the accused admitted the bulk of the Crown�s case but argued that the initial traffic stop and detention violated s. 9 of the Charter and that his s. 8 rights were violated because the officer lacked the reasonable suspicion required to conduct a warrantless search by way of a drug detection dog. The officer had special experience in drug investigation, including the detection of travelling criminals. At issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in: 1) applying the reasonable suspicion standard by failing to take in the totality of the circumstances; 2) determining that the inculpatory factors met the legal standard of reasonable suspicion; and 3) finding that the traffic stop was reasonable.
HELD: The appeal was dismissed. There was no reversible error by the trial judge. 1) There was nothing to indicate that the trial judge failed to look at the totality of the factors. He was required to...