R. v. Mann (P.H.), (2004) 324 N.R. 215 (SCC)

• Judge: Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Friday July 23, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 324 N.R. 215 (SCC);2004 SCC 52;[2004] 3 SCR 59;241 DLR (4th) 214;[2004] 11 WWR 601;185 CCC (3d) 308;21 CR (6th) 1;324 NR 215;[2004] CarswellMan 303;AZ-50263823;EYB 2004-68801;JE 2004-1495;[2004] SCJ No 49 (QL);122 CRR (2d) 189;187 Man R (2d) 1;[2004] ACS no 49;330 WAC 1;62 WCB (2d) 516

R. v. Mann (P.H.) (2004), 324 N.R. 215 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. JL.013

Philip Henry Mann (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (interveners)

(29477; 2004 SCC 52; 2004 CSC 52)

Indexed As: R. v. Mann (P.H.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.

July 23, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was acquitted of possessing marihuana for the purposes of trafficking. The trial judge held that the marihuana was discovered by the police during an unreason­able search and excluded it under s. 24(2) of the Charter. The Crown appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a deci­sion reported at 166 Man.R.(2d) 260; al­lowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Bastarache and Deschamps, JJ. dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restored the accused's acquit­tal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1214

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - Searches incidental to arrest or detention - The police stopped the ac­cused on a sidewalk around midnight in a high crime area because he fit the broad­casted description of a break-in suspect in the area - The police questioned him and conducted a "security search" for weapons - The officer felt something soft in the kangaroo pouch pocket in the front of the accused's sweater - The officer searched inside the pouch because he believed the soft object might be hiding something hard behind it like a weapon - He discovered marihuana - In another pocket he found plastic baggies and two valium pills - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there were reasonable grounds to detain the ac­cused and to conduct a protective pat-down search - The officer's decision to go fur­ther and reach into the pocket was an unreasonable violation of the accused's reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his pockets - The Crown did not discharge its burden to show the search was carried out in a reasonable manner - See paragraphs 46 to 50.

Civil Rights - Topic 1214

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - Searches incidental to arrest or detention - The Supreme Court of Can­ada reviewed the common law devel­op­ment of investigative detention by police and their search powers incidental to inves­tigative detention - The court stated that "to summarize, as discussed above, police officers may detain an individual for inves­ti­gative purposes if there are reasonable grounds to suspect in all the circumstances that the individual is connected to a par­ticular crime and that such a detention is necessary. In addition, where a police of­ficer has reasonable grounds to believe that his or her safety or that of others is at risk, the officer may engage in a protective pat-down search of the detained individual. Both the detention and the pat-down search must be conducted in a reasonable manner. In this connection, I note that the investi­gative detention should be brief in duration and does not impose an obligation on the de­tained individual to answer questions posed by the police. The investigative de­tention and protective search power are to be distinguished from an arrest and the in­ci­dental power to search on arrest, which do not arise in this case." - See paragraphs 36 to 45.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - What constitutes unreasonable search and seizure - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1214].

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.3

Security of the person - Law enforcement -Warrantless search for weapons - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1214].

Civil Rights - Topic 1410.2

Security of the person - Law enforcement -Investigation - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1214].

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes detention - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "'Detention' has been held to cover, in Canada, a broad range of encounters between police officers and members of the public. Even so, the police cannot be said to 'detain', within the meaning of ss. 9 and 10 of the Charter, every suspect they stop for purposes of identification, or even interview. The per­son who is stopped will in all cases be 'de­tained' in the sense of 'delayed', or 'kept waiting'. But the constitutional rights recog­nized by ss. 9 and 10 of the Charter are not engaged by delays that involve no significant physical or psychological re­straint." - See paragraph 19.

Civil Rights - Topic 4613

Right to counsel - General - Requirement of arrest or detention and notice of reasons for - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3604].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The police stopped the ac­cused on a sidewalk around midnight in a high crime area because he fit the broad­casted description of a break-in suspect in the area - The police questioned him and conducted a "security search" for weapons - The officer felt something soft in the kangaroo pouch pocket in the front of the accused's sweater - The officer searched inside the pouch because he believed the soft object might be hiding something hard behind it like a weapon - He discovered marihuana - He found plastic baggies and two valium pills in another pocket - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was unreasonable violation of the ac­cused's reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his pockets - The court excluded this non-conscriptive evidence - The search was a serious breach of the ac­cused's protection against unreasonable search and seizure - The inclusion of the evidence would adversely affect the admin­istration of justice - See paragraphs 51 to 60.

Criminal Law - Topic 3147

Special powers - Power of search - Search incidental to arrest or detention - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1214].

Police - Topic 3086

Powers - Arrest and detention - Detention for investigative purposes - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "police powers and police duties are not necessarily cor­relative. While the police have a common law duty to investigate crime, they are not empowered to undertake any and all action in the exercise of that duty. Individual liberty interests are fundamental to the Canadian constitutional order. Conse­quently, any intrusion upon them must not be taken lightly and, as a result, police officers do not have carte blanche to detain. The power to detain cannot be exercised on the basis of a hunch, nor can it become a de facto arrest." - See para­graph 35.

Police - Topic 3086

Powers - Arrest and detention - Detention for investigative purposes - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1214].

Police - Topic 3185

Powers - Search - Following arrest or detention - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1214].

Police - Topic 3188

Powers - Search - Weapons search of persons - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1214].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 65].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 25].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [paras. 25, 68].

R. v. Godoy (V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311; 235 N.R. 134; 117 O.A.C. 127, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 12 O.R.(3d) 182 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 27, 63].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Murray (1999), 136 C.C.C.(3d) 197 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 29, 66].

R. v. Jacques (J.R.) and Mitchell (M.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 312; 202 N.R. 49; 180 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 458 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Asante-Mensah (D.), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 3; 306 N.R. 289; 175 O.A.C. 317; 2003 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 30].

Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, refd to. [paras. 31, 63].

United States v. Cortez (1981), 449 U.S. 411, refd to. [para. 31].

Adams v. Williams (1972), 407 U.S. 143, refd to. [para. 32].

Unites States v. Mendenhall (1980), 446 U.S. 554 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

United States v. Hensley (1985), 469 U.S. 221 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 2003 SCC 30, refd to. [paras. 36, 70].

R. v. Golden (I.V.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 679; 279 N.R. 1; 153 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 83, refd to. [para. 37].

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), 508 U.S. 366 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42].

U.S. v. Casado (2002), 303 F.3d 440 (2nd Cir. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 43].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Law - see R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al.

R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227; 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270; 2002 SCC 10, refd to. [paras. 52, 70].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [paras. 52, 68].

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 405, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Davis (B.J.) (2004), 346 A.R. 141; 320 W.A.C. 141; 2004 ABCA 33, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Campbell (D.B.) (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 117; 304 W.A.C. 117; 175 C.C.C.(3d) 452; 2003 MBCA 76, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Bernard, [2003] Q.J. No. 5394, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 203, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 78].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Coughlan, Steve, Search Based on Articulable Cause: Proceed with Caution or Full Stop? (2002), 2 C.R.(4th) 49, p. 63 [para. 40].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 450 [para. 55].

Stribopoulos, James, A Failed Experiment? Investigative Detention: Ten Years Later (2003), 41 Alta. L. Rev. 335, p. 339 [para. 16].

Young, Alan, All Along the Watchtower: Arbitrary Detention and the Police Func­tion (1991), 29 Osgoode Hall L.J. 329, p. 330 [para. 16].

Counsel:

Amanda Sansregret and Bruce F. Bonney, for the appellant;

S. David Frankel, Q.C., and François Lacasse, for the respondent;

Michal Fairburn, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario;

Greg Preston and Brad Mandrusiak, for the intervener the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police;

Maureen D. Forestell, for the intervener the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Christopher D. Bredt and Elissa M. Goodman, for the intervener the Cana­dian Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Legal Aid Manitoba, Winnipeg; Phillips Aiello, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;

Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Tor­onto, Ontario, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario;

Edmonton Police Service, Edmonton, Al­berta, for the intervener the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police;

Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cor­nish, Toronto, Ontario, for the inter­vener the Criminal Lawyers' Associ­ation (Ontario);

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on March 26, 2004, before Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Su­preme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Can­ada was delivered in both official lan­guages on July 23, 2004, and the following opin­ions were filed:

Iacobucci, J. (Major, Binnie, LeBel and Fish, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 61;

Deschamps, J., dissenting (Bastarache, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 62 to 80.