R. v. Sandy (B.) et al., (2007) 428 A.R. 312 (PC)

• Judge: Wheatley, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 22, 2007
• Citations: (2007), 428 A.R. 312 (PC);2007 ABPC 173

R. v. Sandy (B.) (2007), 428 A.R. 312 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. OC.038

Her Majesty The Queen v. Blouty Sandy and Tia Santana Addley (051171965P1; 2007 ABPC 173)

Indexed As: R. v. Sandy (B.) et al.

Alberta Provincial Court

Wheatley, P.C.J.

June 22, 2007.

Summary:

Police observed the accused Sandy jumping around on the back of a flat bed truck in a mall parking lot at 1:50 a.m. Sandy repeatedly refused requests to get off the vehicle and to identify himself. The police concluded that Sandy was committing the offence of tampering with a motor vehicle (Regulations under the Traffic Safety Act) and advised him that he was being issued a violation ticket. When Sandy still refused to identify himself, he was advised that he was under arrest for obstruction. Sandy, with the assistance of the accused Addley, resisted attempts to handcuff him and allegedly kicked the police officer. Sandy was charged with assaulting a peace officer, being intoxicated in a public place and tampering with a motor vehicle. Addley was charged with assaulting a peace officer and resisting or obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duties. The accused applied under s. 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings, submitting that their s. 7 and 9 Charter rights were violated because of an arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest without warrant.

The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 1444

Security of the person - Right to privacy - Expectation of privacy - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "interference with s. 7 [Charter] rights is galvanized upon detention or charge. However, prior to detention (or charge), the issue of privacy, encompassing the right to be left alone, is at play. While there is no explicit right to privacy (apart from s. 7), the concept of privacy does inform a s. 7 analysis. A reasonable expectation of privacy is to be determined on the basis of the totality of circumstances, including any subjective expectation of privacy and the objective reasonableness of such expectation" - See paragraph 12.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - Police observed the accused Sandy jumping on the back of a flatbed truck in a mall parking lot at 1:50 a.m - Sandy repeatedly refused requests to stop and to identify himself - The police concluded that Sandy was committing the offence of tampering with a motor vehicle (Regulations under Traffic Safety Act) and advised him that he was being issued a violation ticket - When Sandy still refused to identify himself for the purpose of giving him the ticket, he was arrested for obstruction - Sandy, with the assistance of the accused Addley, resisted attempts to handcuff him and allegedly assaulted the officer - Sandy was charged with assaulting a peace officer, being intoxicated in a public place, and tampering with a motor vehicle - Addley was charged with assaulting a peace officer and obstruction - The accused applied under s. 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings, submitting that their s. 7 and s. 9 Charter rights were violated (arbitrary detention, unlawful arrest without warrant, breach of privacy rights) - The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the application - There was no arbitrary detention - This was an exercise of the common law police power to detain for investigative purposes, which did not violate the Charter where the officer had both subjective and objective reasonable grounds to detain and detention was reasonably necessary in the circumstances - The officer did not detain Sandy merely to facilitate an investigation, which was impermissible - The arrest was authorized under the Traffic Safety Act, as the offence of tampering with a vehicle was one of the specified offences under the Act for which police could arrest without warrant - Sandy had an obligation, in the circumstances, to identify himself - The arrest was lawful where the officer objectively believed that Sandy "apparently" committed a criminal offence - It did not matter that he was charged with offences other than what he was arrested for (obstruction) - That was a matter of prosecutorial discretion, over which the police had no control.

Police - Topic 3069

Powers - Arrest and detention - Arrest without warrant - Of person committing a criminal offence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3079

Powers - Arrest and detention - Refusal to identify oneself - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3086

Powers - Arrest and detention - Detention for investigative purposes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3283

Powers - Identification of criminals - Power to request identity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Edwards (C.) (1996), 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 136 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Maciel, [2003] O.J. No. 126 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Mann (P.H.) (2004), 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 185 C.C.C.(3d) 308 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Greaves (E.A.) (2004), 203 B.C.A.C. 31; 332 W.A.C. 31 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Dedman (1981), 59 C.C.C.(2d) 97 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Therens (1985), 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

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, refd to. [para. 32].

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, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Law - see R. v. 28221109 Canada Inc. et al.

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, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Moore, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 195; 24 N.R. 181; 43 C.C.C.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Gunn (P.B.) (1997), 193 A.R. 222; 135 W.A.C. 222; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Chopra v. Eaton (T.) Co. et al. (1999), 240 A.R. 201; 1999 ABQB 201, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Houle (1985), 66 A.R. 156; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Dedman (1985), 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Biron (1975), 4 N.R. 45; 23 C.C.C.(2d) 513 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Roberge (1983), 46 N.R. 573; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 304 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Guthrie (1982), 39 A.R. 435 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

Rice v. Connolly, [1966] 2 All E.R. 649 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 75].

Counsel:

K. Macdonald, for the Crown;

J. Snowdon, for the accused, Sandy;

M.B. Leebody, for the accused Addley.

These applications were heard at Edmonton, Alberta, before Wheatley, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 22, 2007.