Ontario criminal | Charter Of Rights
ARBITRARY DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT
Accused failed to provide that racial profiling influenced officers
Application by accused to exclude evidence against him because his rights under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated. Accused was charged after he was found in possession of loaded shotgun in public park. He claimed that police did not have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him and that he was target of racial profiling. Two police officers noticed accused riding his bicycle on sidewalk. He did not appear to have destination and he was looking at officers. He was not carrying anything. Officers followed him and when they saw him near tennis court they saw that he had duffle bag slung on his back. Officers believed that he stole bag and they arrested him for possession of stolen property. One officer searched him and found two shotgun shells in his pocket. Bag was half open and officer could see shotgun that was partially wrapped in T-shirts. Application dismissed. Accused failed to prove that racial profiling influenced officers’ action and that it resulted in arbitrary detention. Even though accused was black he was not improperly targeted. Accused’s actions rose to the point of appropriate police curiosity that gave them reason to follow him and what they saw next gave them reason to arrest him. Officers had both subjective and objective reasons to arrest accused. Arrest was lawful and search was lawful as incident to that arrest. Even if Charter was violated evidence was admissible because admitting it would not bring administration of justice into disrepute.
R. v. Rainford (Nov. 25, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Lemon J., File No. CRIMNJ(P) 932/11) 98 W.C.B. (2d) 100 (14 pp.).
Accused failed to provide that racial profiling influenced officers
Application by accused to exclude evidence against him because his rights under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated. Accused was charged after he was found in possession of loaded shotgun in public park. He claimed that police did not have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him and that he was target of racial profiling. Two police officers noticed accused riding his bicycle on sidewalk. He did not appear to have destination and he was looking at officers. He was not carrying anything. Officers followed him and when they saw him near tennis court they saw that he had duffle bag slung on his back. Officers believed that he stole bag and they arrested him for possession of stolen property. One officer searched him and found two shotgun shells in his pocket. Bag was half open and officer could see shotgun that was partially wrapped in T-shirts. Application dismissed. Accused failed to prove that racial profiling influenced officers’ action and that it resulted in arbitrary detention. Even though accused was black he was not improperly targeted. Accused’s actions rose to the point of appropriate police curiosity that gave them reason to follow him and what they saw next gave them reason to arrest him. Officers had both subjective and objective reasons to arrest accused. Arrest was lawful and search was lawful as incident to that arrest. Even if Charter was violated evidence was admissible because admitting it would not bring administration of justice into disrepute.
R. v. Rainford (Nov. 25, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Lemon J., File No. CRIMNJ(P) 932/11) 98 W.C.B. (2d) 100 (14 pp.).
