Investigative Detention Notes

Investigative Detention

Common law right to detain people for investigative purposes.
The power is needed for asking questions concerning time-sensitive issues.
Certain legislation grants additional powers (e.g., Highway Traffic Act, Liquor Control Act), but those are not the focus.

If your role expands into enforcement, you may be able to detain someone to issue a ticket.
This might involve searching and requiring a gun if necessary.

Momentary delays for preliminary questioning do not fall under investigative detention rules.
Example: Asking "Is your name Johnny Tusox?" is okay. Detaining someone to ask "Where were you at?" "Where are you coming from?" "What's in your pockets?" requires reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The threshold or burden of proof needed to detain someone.
The need for detention must be reasonably necessary, based on the totality of the circumstances.
The officer's belief, perception of events, and articulation of justification all matter.

A spectrum of certainty, from totally unrelated to beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable grounds to suspect falls on this matrix.
Example: 0% is totally unrelated; beyond a reasonable doubt is a grand slam in criminal court.
Reasonable grounds to suspect allows detention with only 10-25% certainty to exclude someone.
Reasonable grounds to suspect is more than a hunch or mere suspicion.

Investigative detention requires a nexus, meaning a connection in time and proximity.
This is a close time frame and approximate location to the incident.

Detained individuals have a right against arbitrary detention under Section 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This doesn't extend to a "free-standing flight" (running from police).
Fleeing from an officer with reasonable grounds to suspect can lead to obstruction charges, which are not protected under the Charter.

Outlines reasons for arrest without a warrant, subsequent to a detention:
- To establish identity.
- To prevent the continuation of an offense (e.g., fleeing).
- To preserve evidence with exigent circumstances
If these points are met, an arrest is justified.
If a person gives you his driver's license, you have no reason to believe that he's gonna continue his offense because he stopped and he gives you no identification that he's gonna do it again. Then you don't you don't you you cannot arrest them.

Investigative detention will result in one of two things:
- The person is free to go quickly.
- The person is placed under arrest.
This is based on the burden of proof and reasonable grounds to suspect something is amiss (10-20% certainty).
With more information (50% or more certainty), reasonable grounds to believe exist, allowing for immediate arrest.
Acting in good faith based on radio communication or witness statements is important.

Traffic stops are different; driving is a privilege, not a right.
Checkpoints at events (e.g., hockey games) involve implied consent to search.
Implied consent: By buying a ticket or entering a venue, you agree to a search.
Can be withdrawn at any time. Withdrawing your consent means you can not enter the property.

Private property owners (e.g., concert venues) can set conditions for entry, including bag searches.
By entering, you consent to those conditions.

Burden of proof in criminal law: beyond a reasonable doubt.
Burden of proof in civil court: balance of probabilities (more likely than not).

Complete uncertainty: 0%.
Beyond a reasonable doubt: Greater than 95%.
Balance of probabilities: Greater than 50% (51% vs. 49%).
Suspicion: Less than 10%.
Reasonable grounds to suspect: 10% to 25% (grounds for investigative detention).
Grounds for arrest: 25% to 95%.
If I saw somebody punch the judge in the face, how sure am I on this skill? 100 \%.

Street checks have been banned by the Supreme Court of Canada for being unconstitutional because they are against the charter of rights and freedoms.
Street checks and racial profiling in simplistic terms are not permitted.
Racial profiling example: Arresting someone based solely on race, without other articulable factors.
Cannot stop someone in a courthouse parking lot and demand their name without reason.

Example: A traffic stop where a black driver was pulled over in a First Nations community with a drug epidemic based on a white SUV being spotted on the radar and an Alberta plate. Using experience with the area as the first step. The fact that he pulled his person over due to being racist will not stand up in court.
Justification must be based on the totality of the circumstances, not solely on race.

Using multiple factors to build reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Example: Minors appearing drunk, alcohol cans around, late at night, built grounds to suspect. This is the totality of the circumstances.
This should not be a straight street checking technique.

More than one thing is a good rule of thumb.
The more factors, the stronger the case for arrest.
Example: Running from Courtroom 5 can be enough to stop someone, especially if combined with other factors.

Detain someone if 10-20% sure they're involved, investigate, and quickly exclude them if not.
If you have reasonable grounds to believe anything, you can arrest them.