Issue One: Did Justice Anthopolous err in finding that the police detention of the Applicants and the vehicle was lawful and not arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter?
Justice Anthopolous was correct in finding that the detention of the vehicle and the occupants within did not violate section 9 of the charter of rights and freedoms (the right to not be arbitrarily detained) and the detention of the vehicle was lawful and not arbitrary, the detention of Alomar and Bell was the result of an ongoing investigation.
Det. Martin stated that he believed he witnessed the sale of narcotics during his investigation of the anonymous drug tip, the police may detain a person for investigative purposes if their are reasonable grounds to suspect the individual …show more content…
v. Plummer 2011 ONCA 350. When Ms. Alomar was exiting the vehicle she brought out her purse with her, although it was already suspected that illegal drugs were in the purse the initial reason for extending the search to the purse was because the officers had no knowledge of whether or not any weapons were contained within. The only way to ensure the safety of the detained, the officers, and the citizens in the surrounding area was to have knowledge of what was in the purse. If Alomar had not brought out the purse then there would’ve been no need to extend the search beyond the pat down. Furthermore Det. Colabello’s search of the purse was restrained for the purpose of safety (according to her testimony), she merely opened up the purse to perform a visual inspection and did not conduct a search of its contents. As a result the search conducted by Det. Colabello of the purse was lawful and reasonable to the case at …show more content…
This means that petty crimes or investigations do not mandate the reading of the rights to counsel. This claim is supported by Chief Justices Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin in the case of R v. Evans as they state that “the police have a duty to advise the accused of his or her right to counsel a second time when new circumstances arise indicating that the accused is a suspect for the different, more serious crime than was the case at the time of the first warning”. In this case, multiple warnings were not issued, however, there was change in the investigation. Specifically, the police officers begun their investigation with the intention of determining who the inhabitants of the car were, as they did not match with the registered vehicle owner in the police database. Also, the police officers wanted to inquire and test out the validity of the anonymous tip they received from crime stoppers shortly before. The telling of this information is vital as it proves that one, the initial inquiries were petty and therefore did not mandate the reading of the rights to counsel and second, to help prove later on that there was in fact a change in the nature of the investigation. Continuing on, after the police officers conducted a traffic stop, their
Justice Anthopolous was correct in finding that the detention of the vehicle and the occupants within did not violate section 9 of the charter of rights and freedoms (the right to not be arbitrarily detained) and the detention of the vehicle was lawful and not arbitrary, the detention of Alomar and Bell was the result of an ongoing investigation.
Det. Martin stated that he believed he witnessed the sale of narcotics during his investigation of the anonymous drug tip, the police may detain a person for investigative purposes if their are reasonable grounds to suspect the individual …show more content…
v. Plummer 2011 ONCA 350. When Ms. Alomar was exiting the vehicle she brought out her purse with her, although it was already suspected that illegal drugs were in the purse the initial reason for extending the search to the purse was because the officers had no knowledge of whether or not any weapons were contained within. The only way to ensure the safety of the detained, the officers, and the citizens in the surrounding area was to have knowledge of what was in the purse. If Alomar had not brought out the purse then there would’ve been no need to extend the search beyond the pat down. Furthermore Det. Colabello’s search of the purse was restrained for the purpose of safety (according to her testimony), she merely opened up the purse to perform a visual inspection and did not conduct a search of its contents. As a result the search conducted by Det. Colabello of the purse was lawful and reasonable to the case at …show more content…
This means that petty crimes or investigations do not mandate the reading of the rights to counsel. This claim is supported by Chief Justices Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin in the case of R v. Evans as they state that “the police have a duty to advise the accused of his or her right to counsel a second time when new circumstances arise indicating that the accused is a suspect for the different, more serious crime than was the case at the time of the first warning”. In this case, multiple warnings were not issued, however, there was change in the investigation. Specifically, the police officers begun their investigation with the intention of determining who the inhabitants of the car were, as they did not match with the registered vehicle owner in the police database. Also, the police officers wanted to inquire and test out the validity of the anonymous tip they received from crime stoppers shortly before. The telling of this information is vital as it proves that one, the initial inquiries were petty and therefore did not mandate the reading of the rights to counsel and second, to help prove later on that there was in fact a change in the nature of the investigation. Continuing on, after the police officers conducted a traffic stop, their