R. v. Bond

R. v. Bond

Given the reasonable suspicion of a stolen vehicle and safety concerns, the officers lawfully required the accused to exit and to occupy the police vehicle; the subsequent search of the accused's person including entry into his pants pockets was reasonable and proportionate for officer safety in the circumstances and did not exceed the scope of an investigative search under R. v. Mann, so there was no breach of s.8 or s.9 and the seized evidence is admissible; any s.10(b) issue did not warrant exclusion under s.24(2).

Citation
2005 NSPC 16
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Frederick Francis Bond
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire on Charter S.8, S.9 and Admissibility Under S.24(2)
Outcome
Defence voir dire motion denied; no s.8 or s.9 Charter breach found; seized substance admissible.
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure, Investigative Detention, Charter S.8, Charter S.9, Charter S.10(b), Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2), Police Safety Searches, Impaired Driving, Possession of Controlled Substance
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Search and Seizure Investigative Detention Charter S.8 Charter S.9 Charter S.10(b) +4 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Frederick Francis Bond

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire on Charter S.8, S.9 and Admissibility Under S.24(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police lawfully detained the accused
  2. 2 Whether police were entitled to require the accused to exit the vehicle and place him in the police car
  3. 3 Whether the pat-down and entry into the accused's pants pockets exceeded the scope of an investigative-search under R. v. Mann

Ratio Decidendi

Given the reasonable suspicion of a stolen vehicle and safety concerns, the officers lawfully required the accused to exit and to occupy the police vehicle; the subsequent search of the accused's person including entry into his pants pockets was reasonable and proportionate for officer safety in the circumstances and did not exceed the scope of an investigative search under R. v. Mann, so there was no breach of s.8 or s.9 and the seized evidence is admissible; any s.10(b) issue did not warrant exclusion under s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Defence voir dire motion denied; no s.8 or s.9 Charter breach found; seized substance admissible.

Orders

  • Defence motion denied.
  • Evidence of the substance seized from the accused's pockets admitted.