R. v. Hendrickson

R. v. Hendrickson

Initial encounter (asking to stop and name) was not a detention under Grant/Suberu; detention crystallized when officer directed accused to place hands on police car for a pat‑down; that safety search was not objectively justified under MacDonald and was an arbitrary detention breaching ss.9 and 10; however, the clear plastic bag left in plain view in a public place did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy and its seizure did not breach s.8.

Citation
2018 BCSC 288
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Dylan Ross Hendrickson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal CDSA S.5(2) (possession for Purpose of Trafficking) / Voir Dire (charter Application)
Outcome
Application partly allowed: initial police encounter not detention; detention occurred at commencement of pat‑down and was unlawful (s.9 breach) and triggered s.10 rights which were not respected; seizure of the clear plastic bag did not breach s.8 as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Legal Topics
Detention, Safety Search, Section 8 Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Section 9 Arbitrary Detention, Section 10 Right to Counsel, Abandonment
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Search and Seizure Police Powers Detention Safety Search Section 8 Unreasonable Search and Seizure Section 9 Arbitrary Detention +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Dylan Ross Hendrickson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal CDSA S.5(2) (possession for Purpose of Trafficking) / Voir Dire (charter Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was detained when first stopped and asked his name
  2. 2 Whether asking the accused's name constituted an unreasonable search or seizure
  3. 3 Whether the pat‑down was a lawful safety search

Ratio Decidendi

Initial encounter (asking to stop and name) was not a detention under Grant/Suberu; detention crystallized when officer directed accused to place hands on police car for a pat‑down; that safety search was not objectively justified under MacDonald and was an arbitrary detention breaching ss.9 and 10; however, the clear plastic bag left in plain view in a public place did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy and its seizure did not breach s.8.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed: initial police encounter not detention; detention occurred at commencement of pat‑down and was unlawful (s.9 breach) and triggered s.10 rights which were not respected; seizure of the clear plastic bag did not breach s.8 as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Orders

  • Findings: initial encounter with Cst. Jones was not a detention
  • Findings: detention crystallized when accused was directed to place his hands on the police car for a pat‑down and that detention was arbitrary and unlawful (breach of s.9)