R v Araya, 2025 ABCA 61
[37] The appellant focuses on the lack of any grounds to detain the appellant prior to the police exiting the TAC team van. As stated above, if the appellant had not run when confronted by the police officers, the actions of the police officers would almost certainly have been much different. The appellant’s decision to run was a significant factor in the circumstances.
[38] The reactions of suspects to police presence can form part of the constellation of factors that lead to the decision to detain. Flight from police, prior to detention, is a factor when determining whether the police have reasonable grounds to suspect an individual is involved in criminal conduct and whether they can lawfully detain that individual: Nesbeth at para 14, R v Dene, 2010 ONCA 796 at para 14, R v Plummer, 2011 ONCA 350 at para 23.
[39] In oral argument, the appellant argued that the appellant’s race can factor into the decision to run and therefore, that it was not reasonable for Constable Chan to rely on the fact the appellant ran when forming his belief that he was chasing Mr. Lugela. Case law, such as Reid, recognizes that a person’s racialized status is a relevant consideration in the mix of factors informing what a reasonable person in the individual’s circumstances would have concluded when interacting with the police (para 28). However, we are not satisfied that the existence of other potential explanations for the appellant’s flight undermines the reasonableness of Constable Chan’s subjective belief that he was chasing Mr. Lugela in this case.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire