Pubdate: Sat, 24 Jul 2004
Source: Edmonton Sun (CN AB)
Copyright: 2004, Canoe Limited Partnership.
Contact:  http://www.fyiedmonton.com/htdocs/edmsun.shtml
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/135
Author: Doug Beazley
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)

POLICE SEARCH POWERS UPHELD

A Supreme Court of Canada decision affirming the power of police to detain 
and even search people without arresting them is an "atrocious" attack on 
personal freedom, says a local professor of law. "It used to be good legal 
advice in this country to tell someone you could walk away from the police 
unless they arrested you. Not anymore," said University of Alberta law 
professor Sanjeev Anand.

"As a visible minority myself, I can see how this kind of police power 
could be used to harass people without cause."

City police, meanwhile, say they're satisfied the Supreme Court upheld 
their right to detain and search within limits.

"Ultimately it's about the officer's own safety," said Sgt. Greg Preston, 
Edmonton Police Service legal adviser.

"We think police should have the automatic right to search - it would be 
the most effective way to protect police. But, overall, we're pleased."

Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling upheld the acquittal of Philip Henry Mann, 
a native Winnipeg man busted there in 2000 for trafficking after he was 
stopped and searched by police, and found to be carrying almost an ounce of 
marijuana.

In a 5-2 decision, the court ruled police have the power to briefly detain 
someone without arrest for "investigative purposes" - Mann was held in 
connection with a break-in.

The court also upheld cops' power to do a pat-down search on a detainee - 
but not to arbitrarily search the suspect's pockets, as was done in Mann's 
case, unless the officer has good reason to believe the suspect might be 
hiding a weapon.

"The search must be grounded in objectively discernible facts, to prevent 
'fishing expeditions,' " wrote Justice Frank Iacobucci.

The problem, said Anand, is the court left the definition of "discernible 
facts" completely open-ended: an officer could claim he thought a suspect 
was armed in order to conduct a pocket search.

"It's extremely nebulous," he said.

"The public did not elect the Supreme Court to curtail citizen liberty.

"It's time for Parliament to draft some clear limits on police powers."

Preston, who submitted a court brief in the Mann case on behalf of the 
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, doesn't see the decision changing 
current practice.

"Basically you must be able to argue after the search that the officer had 
reasonable grounds to suspect a threat to his safety."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager