GoatcookiemonsteraniLv1

25 Apr 2023

Read the text above and the two pictures attached and answer these two discussion questions below:

Two plainclothes police officers were on patrol in the Danforth area of Toronto. Their primary duty was to visit schools in the area to help create a safer environment and prevent the assaults, robberies, and drug offences that had been happening there. A third officer, Cst. Gomes, was in uniform and driving a marked police car, to provide a visible police presence in the area.

 

The plainclothes officers saw Donnohue Grant, a young black man, walking down the street. They noted that he seemed to stare at them in an unusual way, and was fidgeting with his coat and pants. They asked Gomes to "have a chat" with Grant to see if there was any reason to be concerned.

 

Gomes got out of his car and blocked Grant's path on the sidewalk. He asked Grant to provide his name and address. Grant nervously adjusted his jacket and Gomes asked him to keep his hands in front of him. The two plainclothes officers, who were watching the conversation from their own car, felt Grant was acting suspicious, and decided to stand by. They took up positions behind Gomes and flashed their badges to identify themselves as police officers.

 

Gomes asked Grant a number of questions, and in response Grant replied that he had been arrested a few years earlier, and that he was carrying a small amount of marijuana and a firearm. The officers arrested and searched Grant, and seized marijuana and a loaded revolver. Grant was advised of his right to counsel.

 

At trial, Grant claimed the officers had violated his rights under sections 8,9 , and 10 of the Charter and argued that the firearm should be excluded from the evidence under section 24(2). The judge did not find any Charter breaches, admitted the firearm into evidence, and convicted Grant of several firearm offences. On appeal, the court found that the police had arbitrarily detained Grant, and therefore breached his rights under section 9 of the Charter. However, they found that the firearm should still be admitted into evidence. Grant appealed further to the Supreme Court.

 

The Decision:

The Supreme Court found that the police had violated Grant's rights under sections 9 and 10 of the Charter.

 

Section 9 of the Charter protects people from being detained by the police without any good reason. Police detention may be physical-for example, handcuffing or restraining someone-or it may be psychological. Psychological detention happens when the police make a demand that a person must comply with, or when the police act in a way that gives the impression that the person must comply with a demand. If the Court has to decide whether or not there was a police detention, they will look at the whole set of circumstances and the way the interaction played out. If reasonable person in the same circumstances would believe they were being detained, the court will find out that there was a detention.

 

Although the police were acting within their powers when they decided to approach and question Grant. Grant was not  under any legal obligation to answer. When Gomes told Grant to keep his hands in front of him, he gave the impression Grant has to obey. This impression was reinforced by the plainclothes officers joining Gomes and standing behind him as backup. A reasonable person in these circumstances would most likely believe they had an obligation to do as the police said, so the court decided that Grant was psychologically detained.

 

The Court also found that the police had infringed Grant's the police must under section 10 of the Charter. At the time of detention, and of their right inform a detained person the reasons for their detention, and of his right to to speak to a lawyer. The police did not inform Grant of his right to counsel until after they had detained him, searched him, and arrested him. The court said this is too much of a delay.

 

Although the Court found the infringement of Grant's Charter rights serious, they also felt that the public interest in keeping guns off the streets outweighed it. Since this was an 'uncertain' area of the law at the time, the Court allowed the firearm into evidence. All but one of Grant's charges were upheld.

 

1. Do you agree with the courts decision to admit the fire arm as evidence? Why or why not?

2. The court wrote (paragraph 32) that if police are unsure, whether an individual thinks they’re being detained, “ it is open to them to inform the subject in unambiguous terms that he, or she is under no obligation to answer questions and is free to go.” do you think this is a good policy? Does it go too far or not far enough?