1 / 17

Investigative Detention (Reasonable Grounds to Detain)

Investigative Detention (Reasonable Grounds to Detain). Advanced Patrol Training. CASE STUDY. Given a case study, an OPVTA program, class discussions and lecture, the learner will be able to:

malcolm-gonzales
Download Presentation

Investigative Detention (Reasonable Grounds to Detain)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Investigative Detention(Reasonable Grounds to Detain) Advanced Patrol Training

  2. CASE STUDY

  3. Given a case study, an OPVTA program, class discussions and lecture, the learner will be able to: Explain the law on ‘Investigative Detention’ and be able to articulate in detail – both subjective and objective grounds for suspicion - the reasons for the detention of an individual(s) for investigative purposes and subsequent search for officer safety; both in accordance with the Charter and case law. OBJECTIVE

  4. What were the main points of the OPVTA program? OPVTA PROGRAM

  5. Reasonable grounds to suspect an individual is connected to a particular crime; Detain and investigate – must advise in clear and simple language the reason for the detention (detention must be brief – based on the situation); MUST provide R.T.C. without delay(subject to concerns for officer safety or justified under s. 1 Charter); In addition, if reasonable grounds exist for officer safety – pat-down search for weapons only is permitted. R. v. Mann, S.C.R., 2004, R. v. Suberu, S.C.R., 2009 INVESTIGATIVE DETENTIONdetain & search

  6. Not on vague concerns for safety; Not on hunches or intuition re: safety; Both objective and subjective grounds are required (known facts and what those facts mean to the officer); Must articulate reasons for safety search – search is not automatic with lawful detention SAFETY CONCERNS CONT.

  7. Suspension of a person’s liberty interest by a significant physical or psychological restraint; Psychological Detention - the individual has a legal obligation to comply with request or demand, or a reasonable person would conclude by reason of the police conduct that suspect had no choice but to comply; DETENTION DEFINED

  8. Psychological Detention - Police Actions General inquiries regarding a particular occurrence or singling out the individual for focused investigation; Conduct, language, location, presence of others, and the duration of the encounter; Age, physical stature, minority status, level of sophistication; R. v. Grant, S.C.R., 2009 DETENTION DEFINED CONT.

  9. Detention and search must be conducted in a reasonable manner; The detention should be brief; No obligation on detained individual(s) to answer questions; Investigative detention and protective search power is a lower standard than arrest and search incident to arrest. SCOPE OF DETENTION

  10. LOWER STANDARD THAN ARREST BUT BEYOND MERE SUSPICION

  11. A hearing which a judge conducts to determine if evidence is admissible Rules of evidence are more lax Hearsay evidence is admissible Officer can state prior police experiences, opinions, training, etc. but evidence must also include objective facts of the situation VOIR DIRE

  12. Did the officer have both objective and subjective belief? Was it a situation of either urgency or necessity? Was the officer acting in good faith? Were the actions reasonable given the totality of the circumstances? ISSUES FOR JUDGE TO CONSIDER ON ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE DURING VOIR DIRE

  13. A Peace Officer who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law Acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he/she is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose 25(1) Criminal Code R. v. Nesbeth (O.C.A.) 2008, R. v. Byfield (S.C.J.) 2012 et al USE OF FORCE

  14. Time of night – no stores at the time were open; Direction of accused car – inconsistent; Commercial area; Movement by individuals in a manner which appeared that they did not wish to be seen; Bundled up clothing inside a running car on a mild evening; Vehicle was running with lights turned off; Officer’s previous experience (problem area etc.) R. v. BULLOCK (Voir Dire)

  15. High crime area – location – drug activity; Look of surprise, coupled with suspicious; behavior, including appearing to be conceal something in the car; Inconsistent behaviour based on experience; ‘Officer Alert’ - caution – firearms; Suspect wearing a bullet-proof vest; Officer’s good faith – training is essentially tied to good faith and Charter education. R. v. PLUMMER (Voir Dire)

  16. Ontario Court of Appeal – 2011 Decision Agreed with Trial Judge’s definition of search power that extended to the search of vehicle: Where the police see conduct consistent with concealing something in the area of the front passenger seat, have information the person may be carrying a gun and wearing a bullet proof vest, and confirm he is wearing a bullet proof vest, to find that the police had to stop their search once they found he was not carrying a gun on him, flies in the face of concerns for officer safety. R. v. PLUMMER cont.

  17. Questions? Review Case Law Developments from Study Guide and APT Newsletters for further clarification Review additional materials from OPVTA Programs – Investigative Detention (program menu) REVIEW OPVTA APT Newsletter

More Related