R. v. Mann
Encyclopedia
R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, 2004 SCC 52, is a leading constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada
on the limits of police powers for search and seizure
. The Court found that police
have a right to detain someone for investigation but do not have the right to search them beyond searching for concealed weapons. In this case, a suspect's section 8
rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
were violated when a police officer stopped him on the street and searched his pockets finding marijuana on his possession.
at around midnight, two police officers responded to a break and enter. While searching the neighbourhood, they spotted a young man matching the description of the suspect. He was described as a 21 year-old, 5 foot 8, Aboriginal
male in a black jacket. The officers stopped the man, asked him some questions, and then gave him a pat-down. When patting the man down, the officer noticed a soft object in one of his pockets. The officer reached in and pulled out a bag containing 27 grams of marijuana.
The young man was arrested and cautioned for possession for the purposes of trafficking under section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
.
At trial the judge found that the search violated section 8 of the Charter and that the bag must be excluded from evidence as it would interfere with the fairness of justice under section 24(2) of the Charter
. The judge found that the pat-down was reasonable for security purposes only but reaching into the suspect's pockets was not for that purpose.
On appeal the Court found that the search and detention were within reason given the circumstances, thus the acquittal was set aside and a new trial was ordered.
The following issues were put to the Court:
Justice Iaccobucci held that where a police officer detains a suspect on reasonable grounds they are allowed to give a pat-down only as a protective measure. Any search for the purposes of detecting and collecting evidence will not have been on reasonable grounds. In the current case, the initial pat-down was minimally intrusive. However, the search of the pocket must be grounded in a reasonable justification, which in the case has no justification.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
on the limits of police powers for search and seizure
Search and seizure
Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime.Some countries have...
. The Court found that police
Police
The police is a personification of the state designated to put in practice the enforced law, protect property and reduce civil disorder in civilian matters. Their powers include the legitimized use of force...
have a right to detain someone for investigation but do not have the right to search them beyond searching for concealed weapons. In this case, a suspect's section 8
Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This Charter right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state...
rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
were violated when a police officer stopped him on the street and searched his pockets finding marijuana on his possession.
Background
On December 23, 2000, in WinnipegWinnipeg
Winnipeg is the capital and largest city of Manitoba, Canada, and is the primary municipality of the Winnipeg Capital Region, with more than half of Manitoba's population. It is located near the longitudinal centre of North America, at the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers .The name...
at around midnight, two police officers responded to a break and enter. While searching the neighbourhood, they spotted a young man matching the description of the suspect. He was described as a 21 year-old, 5 foot 8, Aboriginal
Aboriginal peoples in Canada
Aboriginal peoples in Canada comprise the First Nations, Inuit and Métis. The descriptors "Indian" and "Eskimo" have fallen into disuse in Canada and are commonly considered pejorative....
male in a black jacket. The officers stopped the man, asked him some questions, and then gave him a pat-down. When patting the man down, the officer noticed a soft object in one of his pockets. The officer reached in and pulled out a bag containing 27 grams of marijuana.
The young man was arrested and cautioned for possession for the purposes of trafficking under section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is Canada's federal drug control statute. Passed in 1996 by the Chrétien government, it repeals the Narcotic Control Act and Parts III and IV of the Food and Drug Act and establishes eight Schedules of controlled substances and two Classes of precursors...
.
At trial the judge found that the search violated section 8 of the Charter and that the bag must be excluded from evidence as it would interfere with the fairness of justice under section 24(2) of the Charter
Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated...
. The judge found that the pat-down was reasonable for security purposes only but reaching into the suspect's pockets was not for that purpose.
On appeal the Court found that the search and detention were within reason given the circumstances, thus the acquittal was set aside and a new trial was ordered.
The following issues were put to the Court:
- whether there exists, at common law, a police power to detain individuals for investigative purposes
- if so, whether there exists a concomitant common law power of search incident to such investigative detentions.
- whether any existing detention and/or search power was properly exercised;
- if the appellant's rights were violated, whether the evidence ought to be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Reasons of the court
The Court found that the trial judge was correct and the acquittal should be restored. The opinion of the Court was given by Iacobucci J., joined by Major, Binnie, LeBel, and Fish JJ., with Deschamps and Bastarache JJ. in dissent.Justice Iaccobucci held that where a police officer detains a suspect on reasonable grounds they are allowed to give a pat-down only as a protective measure. Any search for the purposes of detecting and collecting evidence will not have been on reasonable grounds. In the current case, the initial pat-down was minimally intrusive. However, the search of the pocket must be grounded in a reasonable justification, which in the case has no justification.