- R. v. Mann
SCCInfoBox
case-name=R. v. Mann
full-case-name=Philip Henry Mann v. Her Majesty The Queen
heard-date=March 26, 2004
decided-date=July 23, 2004
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
docket=
history=Judgment for the Crown in the (Manitoba Court of Appeal )
ruling=
ratio= Police have a right to detain someone for investigation but do not have the right to search them beyond searching for concealed weapons.
SCC=2004-2005
Unanimous=
Majority=Iacobucci (paras. 1-61)
JoinMajority=Major, Binnie, LeBel, Fish
Concurrence=
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=Deschamps (paras. 62-80)
JoinDissent=Bastarache
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied="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 forsearch and seizure . The Court found thatpolice 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 theCanadian 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.Background
On
December 23 ,2000 , inWinnipeg 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 ofmarijuana .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:
# 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.
External links
*
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
