R. v. Mann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R. v. Mann

Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: March 26, 2004
Judgment: July 23, 2004
Full case name: Philip Henry Mann v. Her Majesty The Queen
Citations: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, 2004 SCC 52 (CanLII); (2004), 241 D.L.R. (4th) 214; [2004] 11 W.W.R. 601; (2004), 185 C.C.C. (3d) 308; (2004), 21 C.R. (6th) 1; (2004), 187 Man. R. (2d) 1; (2004), 187 Man. R. (2e) 1
History: Judgment for the Crown in the (Manitoba Court of Appeal)
Holding
Police have a right to detain someone for investigation but do not have the right to search them beyond searching for concealed weapons.
Court membership

Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron
Reasons given

Majority by: Iacobucci (paras. 1-61)
Joined by: Major, Binnie, LeBel, Fish
Dissent by: Deschamps (paras. 62-80)
Joined by: Bastarache

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.

[edit] Background

On December 23, 2000, in Winnipeg 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 reason 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:

  1. whether there exists, at common law, a police power to detain individuals for investigative purposes
  2. if so, whether there exists a concomitant common law power of search incident to such investigative detentions.
  3. whether any existing detention and/or search power was properly exercised;
  4. 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] External links