R v Barton, 2024 ABCA 34
[49] Investigative detentions must be conducted reasonably and, as such, should be “brief in duration”: Mann at para 45. The word “brief” is descriptive and not quantitative. It describes a range of time and not a precise time limit: R v Barclay, 2018 ONCA 114 at para 30 [Barclay]. Whether a particular duration is justified is to be determined by the circumstances of each case: R v Garland, 2019 ABCA 479 at para 35 [Garland]. Unique circumstances may warrant detention on the longer end of “brief”, such as in Garland where the investigative detention lasted more than four hours.
[50] For a detention to fall within the common law powers of police, it must be “reasonably necessary” for the carrying out of a police duty: Mann at paras 34, 39; R v MacDonald, 2014 SCC 3 at paras 35–37 [MacDonald]. For a continued detention to be authorized at common law, its continuation must also be “reasonably necessary” for the carrying out of a police duty: R v Greaves, 2004 BCCA 484 at para 54; R v McPake, 2019 BCSC 751 at para 178. The duration and nature of an investigative detention are tailored in part to the purpose of the detention: R v McGuffie, 2016 ONCA 365 at para 38. The reasonableness of the detention and its duration cannot be assessed without regard to the police purpose.
[51] The jurisprudence on investigative detentions has largely developed in contexts where police know a crime has been committed and reasonably suspect the detainee was connected to the crime. In such cases, the police purpose is usually relatively narrow: to identify the suspect or to obtain additional information about that person’s involvement in the known offence. Investigative detention in these circumstances affords police the opportunity to ask targeted questions to confirm or to refute their suspicion.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire