Arrestations sans mandat

De Le carnet de droit pénal
Ang

Fr

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois janvier 2020. (Rev. # 6215)
n.b.: Cette page est expérimentale. Si vous repérez une grammaire ou un texte anglais clairement incorrect, veuillez m'en informer à [email protected] et je le corrigerai dès que possible.

Introduction

Voir également: Compelling the Accused to Attend Court, Release by Police on Undertaking, et Arrest Procedure

Les agents de la paix sont habilités à procéder à des arrestations sans mandat lorsque la loi l'autorise. La principale source d'autorité se trouve à l'article 495 du Code Criminel. Une arrestation a lieu lorsqu'un agent fait l'une des deux choses suivantes:[1]

  1. la saisie ou l'attouchement effectif du corps d'une personne en vue de sa détention ou
  2. la prononciation de « mots d'arrestation » à une personne qui se soumet à l'officier qui l'arrête.

La validité de toute arrestation doit être déterminée en fonction de ce que savait le policier à ce moment-là. L’omission subséquente de déclaration de culpabilité pour l’infraction pour laquelle l’accusé a été arrêté n’a aucune incidence sur l’analyse.[2]

Cependant, un agent ne peut être excusé d’arrêter une personne en vertu d’une loi précédemment abrogée.[3]

  1. see Arrest_Procedure#Validity_of_Arrest for details
  2. R c Biron, 1975 CanLII 13 (SCC), [1976] 2 SCR 56, par Martland J (5:3)
  3. R c Houle, 1985 ABCA 275 (CanLII), 24 CCC (3d) 57, par Stevenson JA (3:0)

Pouvoir d’arrestation

Lorsqu'il n'y a pas de mandat d'arrestation contre une personne, un agent de la paix est régi par l'article 495:

Arrestation sans mandat par un agent de la paix

495 (1) Un agent de la paix peut arrêter sans mandat :

a) une personne qui a commis un acte criminel ou qui, d’après ce qu’il croit pour des motifs raisonnables, a commis ou est sur le point de commettre un acte criminel;
b) une personne qu’il trouve en train de commettre une infraction criminelle;
c) une personne contre laquelle, d’après ce qu’il croit pour des motifs raisonnables, un mandat d’arrestation ou un mandat de dépôt, rédigé selon une formule relative aux mandats et reproduite à la partie XXVIII, est exécutoire dans les limites de la juridiction territoriale dans laquelle est trouvée cette personne.
Conséquences de l’arrestation sans mandat

(3) Nonobstant le paragraphe (2), un agent de la paix agissant aux termes du paragraphe (1) est censé agir légalement et dans l’exercice de ses fonctions aux fins :

a) de toutes procédures engagées en vertu de la présente loi ou de toute autre loi fédérale;
b) de toutes autres procédures, à moins qu’il n’y soit allégué et établi par la personne qui fait cette allégation que l’agent de la paix ne s’est pas conformé aux exigences du paragraphe (2).

L.R. (1985), ch. C-46, art. 495L.R. (1985), ch. 27 (1er suppl.), art. 75


Arrest without warrant by peace officer

495 (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant

(a) a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence;
(b) a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence; or
(c) a person in respect of whom he has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant of arrest or committal, in any form set out in Part XXVIII [Pt. XXVIII – Dispositions diverses (art. 841 à 849)] in relation thereto, is in force within the territorial jurisdiction in which the person is found.

[omis (2)]

Consequences of arrest without warrant

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) [exception d'intérêt public au pouvoir d'arrestation], a peace officer acting under subsection (1) [pouvoir d'arrestation sans mandat] is deemed to be acting lawfully and in the execution of his duty for the purposes of

(a) any proceedings under this or any other Act of Parliament; and
(b) any other proceedings, unless in any such proceedings it is alleged and established by the person making the allegation that the peace officer did not comply with the requirements of subsection (2) [exception d'intérêt public au pouvoir d'arrestation].

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 495; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 75.
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)


Note: 495(1) et (3)

A police officer can arrest where:

  1. there is reasonable grounds a person has committed a hybrid or indictable offence;
  2. there is reasonable grounds a person is about to commit a hybrid or indictable offence;
  3. a person is committing any criminal offence (including summary offences); or
  4. a person has a warrant out for his/her arrest.

There is limited power to arrest where the accused is found committing a summary offence and it is necessary to establish the accused's identity, among other things.[1]

Section 495 (1)(b) does not require the officer to "rule out potential innocent explanations" to his observations.[2] The formation of reasonable grounds does not require a prima facie case.[3]

  1. Moore v The Queen, 1978 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1979] 1 SCR 195, par Spence J
  2. R c MacCannell, 2014 BCCA 254 (CanLII), 314 CCC (3d) 514, par Garson JA, au para 46
  3. , ibid.

Arrest for Breach of Peace

There is also a common law power for peace officers to arrest without a warrant where the officer has an honest and reasonable belief that there has been a breach of the peace or where there is one that is imminent.[1] This power is limited and cannot permit a "roving commission" to arrest those who the police wish.[2] They must have a "reasonable basis" to invoke this power. This includes the requirement that the conditions pre-exist the officer's attendance rather than being the result of police action.[3]

  1. Hayes v Thompson, 1985 CanLII 151 (BCCA), 18 CCC (3d) 254, par Hutcheon JA
    Brown v Durham (Regional Municipality) Police Force, 1998 CanLII 7198 (ON CA), [1998] O.J. No. 5274, par Doherty JA
    R c Collins, 2012 CanLII 26587 (NL PC), par Orr J
    R c Khatchadorian, 1998 CanLII 6115 (BC CA), 127 CCC (3d) 565, par Hall JA, au para 8 ("It seems to me that there exists clear authority in previous judgments of this court to sustain the proposition that a police officer is entitled to make a lawful arrest of someone who is engaged in a breach of the peace or who it is anticipated may shortly engage in such activity.") R c Lefebvre, 1984 CanLII 473 (BCCA), 15 CCC (3d) 503, par Craig JA
  2. Khachadorian, supra
  3. Khachadorian, supra

Arrest for Breach of Conditions

Arrestation sans mandat : application de l’article 524 [procédure relative à la violation des conditions]

495.1 Malgré toute autre disposition de la présente loi, l’agent de la paix qui a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’un prévenu soit a violé ou est sur le point de violer une sommation, une citation à comparaître, une promesse ou une ordonnance de mise en liberté le visant, soit a commis un acte criminel alors qu’il était visé par une sommation, une citation à comparaître, une promesse ou une ordonnance de mise en liberté, peut l’arrêter sans mandat afin qu’il soit conduit devant un juge ou un juge de paix au titre de l’article 524 [procédure relative à la violation des conditions].

2019, ch. 25, art. 211
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)


Note: 495.1

This provision came into force on 18 décembre 2019.

Duty Not to Arrest on Public Interest Grounds

495.
[omis (1)]

Limitation

(2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for

(a) an indictable offence mentioned in section 553 [absolute competence offenses],
(b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction [i.e. hybrid offences], or
(c) an offence punishable on summary conviction [see list of summary offences],

in any case where

(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to
(i) establish the identity of the person,
(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or
(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence,

may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and

(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.

[omis (3)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 495; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 75.
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)


Note: 495(2)

The failure to properly consider factors in favour of release may be grounds to find arbitrary detention.[1]

  1. see R c Baker, 1988 CanLII 9639 (NS CA), 88 NSR (2d) 250, par Jones JA
    R c Cayer (1988), OJ No. 1120 (ONCA)(*pas de liens CanLII)

Appearance Notice on Public Interest Grounds

See Compelling Attendance by Accused Without Arrest#Appearance_Notice

Droit contre les arrestations illégales

Voir également: Investigative Detention#Right Against Arbitrary Detention

L'article 9 de la Charte interdit la détention arbitraire. Sous le titre « détention ou emprisonnement », la Charte stipule :

9 Chacun a droit à la protection contre la détention ou l’emprisonnement arbitraires.

CCRF


Note up: 9

Purpose

The "purpose of s. 9, broadly put, is to protect individual liberty from unjustified state interference"[1] Thus "a detention in the absence of at least reasonable suspicion is unlawful and therefore arbitrary within s. 9"[2]

Fardeau

Il incombe au demandeur de prouver que l'accusé était "détenu" au sens de l'art. 9 qui doit être prouvé selon la prépondérance des probabilités.[3]

Il incombe alors au ministère public d'établir qu'une arrestation sans mandat était légale et ne violait pas l'art. 9 de la Charte.[4]

Standing

Un accusé arrêté pour des motifs comprenant des preuves obtenues grâce à la violation des droits d'un tiers garantis par la Charte n'a pas qualité pour contester les droits du tiers.[5] Le seul remède dans une telle situation serait une demande d'abus de procédure.[6]

  1. R c Grant, 2009 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2009] 2 SCR 353, par McLachlin CJ, au para 20
  2. , ibid., au para 55
  3. R c Bush, 2010 ONCA 554 (CanLII), 259 CCC (3d) 127, par Durno J, au para 74
    R c B(L), 2007 ONCA 596 (CanLII), 227 CCC (3d) 70, par Moldaver JA, au para 60
  4. R c Murphy, 2018 NSSC 191 (CanLII), par Rosinski J, au para 4
  5. R c Todd, 2015 BCSC 680 (CanLII), 121 WCB (2d) 113, par Rogers J R c Tran, 2016 BCPC 159 (CanLII), par Lamperson J, aux paras 46 to 49
    cf. R c Brown, 2014 BCSC 1665 (CanLII), par Funt J
  6. , ibid., au para 46

Reasonable and Probable Grounds

Voir également: Reasonable and Probable Grounds

An arresting officer must have reasonable and probable grounds to make the arrest. Those grounds must be subjectively held by the officer and must be reasonable.[1] Thus, the analysis considers both an objective and subjective component.[2]

An arresting officer is not required the same scrutiny as a justice of a peace would need to be in considering a search warrant.[3]

Objective Requirement

The objective component asks whether the "existence of objectively reasonable grounds for arrest requires that a Court consider whether a reasonable person would find reasonable and probable ground for arrest". This reasonable person must be "in the shoes" of the officer, taking into account "training and experience".[4]

The analysis is "approached as a whole" looking at the "cumulative effect" of all the evidence known at the time.[5]

Timing When Grounds are Formed

Police cannot arrest first and then determine after the fact whether the accused had a connection with their investigation.[6]

The reasonableness of an officers actions is based on what was known to them prior to acting, regardless of its accuracy and completeness. The court may take into account the nature of the power being exercised in its context. The dynamics of an arrest will vary in different circumstances and will sometimes need to be decided upon quickly.[7]

Sources

The officer may base his belief upon assumptions or secondary sources. However, the belief cannot be only a hunch. The circumstances must be sufficient to convince a reasonably fair-minded person put in the same position as the officer that the grounds for his or her belief are reasonable. The facts must not be considered piecemeal but in a holistic manner.[8]

Foundation of Belief

A conclusory statement from one officer to another, such as “a drug transaction has taken place ”, will not support an objective finding of reasonable and probable grounds for an arrest.[9]

Sharing of Reasonable Belief Between Officers

The arresting officer can safely assume grounds exist where he is directed by another officer to arrest the accused.[10] It is the officer who has formed the grounds who decides on whether to arrest a person. They do not need to be the one performing the arrest and the arresting officer may rely on the assessment of that officer.[11]

Multiplicity of Beliefs

A police office can have more than one believe and objective in doing a search incident to arrest as long as it is objectively justifiable.[12]

Sufficiency of Investigation

An arrest may be invalid where the investigator failed to gather sufficient information to form grounds by abbreviating their investigation.[13]

The police observation of two men exchanging an unknown object, without anything more, does not meet the standard of reasonable suspicion to detain or reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.[14]

A mistaken belief that there is a warrant out for arrest does not obligate the police to look into every claim by detainee that there is no warrant, however, the police may not disregard the claim without reason to believe it may be an unreliable claim.[15]

Timing at Which Grounds are Formed

Objective reasonableness is determined on the "factual matrix that existed at the time the arrest was made". Other information not known to the arresting officer is not relevant.[16]

  1. R c Storrey, 1990 CanLII 125 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 241, par Cory J, aux pp. 250-1
  2. , ibid.
    R c Grotheim, 2001 SKCA 116 (CanLII), 161 CCC (3d) 49, par Cameron JA
    R c McClelland, 1995 ABCA 199 (CanLII), 165 AR 332 (CA), par McFadyen JA (2:1), au para 21
    R c Juan, 2007 BCCA 351 (CanLII), 222 CCC (3d) 289, par Thackray JA, au para 27
    R c Phung, 2013 ABCA 63 (CanLII), 542 AR 392, par curiam
  3. see R c Polashek, 1999 CanLII 3714 (ON CA), 45 OR (3d) 434, par Rosenberg JA Golub, supra, au p. 750
  4. Phung, supra, au para 10
  5. R c Nolet, 2010 SCC 24 (CanLII), [2010] 1 SCR 851, par Binnie J, au para 48
  6. see R c Whitaker, 2008 BCCA 174 (CanLII), 254 BCAC 234, par Frankel JA
    R c Chaif-Gust, 2011 BCCA 528 (CanLII), 280 CCC (3d) 548, par Finch CJ
  7. R c Golub, 1997 CanLII 6316 (ON CA), 34 OR (3d) 743, 117 CCC (3d) 193, par Doherty JA, au p. 750
  8. R c Chin, 2003 ABPC 118 (CanLII), 345 AR 157, par Allen J, au para 60
  9. R c Lal, 1998 CanLII 4393 (BCCA), 130 CCC (3d) 413, par Ryan JA
  10. R c Chervinski, 2013 ABQB 29 (CanLII), par Hall J, aux paras 21, 22
  11. R c Shokar, 2006 BCSC 770 (CanLII), BCJ No 1163, par Joyce J, au para 21
    R c Hall, 2006 SKCA 19 (CanLII), 206 CCC (3d) 416, par Gerwing JA
  12. R c Chubak, 2009 ABCA 8 (CanLII), 243 CCC (3d) 202, par Ritter JA, au para 18
    R c Galye, 2015 BCSC 1950 (CanLII), par Kent J, au para 38(an "arresting officer's subjective belief that he or she has the requisite reasonable grounds is insufficient by itself for an arrest under s. 495(1)(a) of the Code to be lawful. Those grounds must also be justifiable from an objective point of view")
  13. e.g. R c Munoz, 2006 CanLII 3269 (ONSC), 86 OR (3d) 134, 205 CCC (3d) 70, par Ducharme J
  14. R c NO, 2009 ABCA 75 (CanLII), 186 CRR (2d) 60, par curiam
    R c Rahmani-Shirazi, 2008 ABQB 145 (CanLII), 451 AR 145, par Sullivan J
  15. R c Gerson-Foster, 2019 ONCA 405 (CanLII), par Paciocco JA
  16. Galye, supra, au para 38 ("Determining whether the arresting officer's grounds were objectively reasonable involves an assessment of the factual matrix that existed at the time the arrest was made. Whether other information, had it been available, might have strengthened or weakened those grounds is not a relevant consideration")

"About to Commit"

Under s. 495(1)(a) a peace officer may make a warrantless arrest of a person who is "about to commit" a hybrid or indictable offence.

An inebriated person about to operate a motor vehicle will be "about to commit" an offence of impaired driving.[1]

  1. see R c Beaudette, 1957 CanLII 502 (ON CA), 118 CCC 295, par Schroeder JA

"Finds Committing"

Under s. 495(1)(b) empowers a peace officer to make a warrantless arrest where a person is "apparently" committing an offence. This must be an honestly held belief and must be reasonable. The officer does not have to be so certain as equate with a conviction.[1]

The requirements of "finds committing" consist of:[2]

  1. the officer's knowledge must be contemporaneous with the event;
  2. the officer must actually observe or detect the commission of the offence; and
  3. there must be an "objective basis for the officer's conclusion that an offence is "being committed". It "must be apparent to a reasonable person placed in the circumstances of an arresting officer".

It has been found that the strong smell of raw marijuana can be sufficient to conclude that the accused was in possession or marijuana and is arrestable under s.495(1)(b).[3] A faint and intermittent smell is not sufficient for arrest.

The person arresting does not mean that he "must be present when the offence is committed". He can "rely on reasonable inferences drawn from what he or she has seen transpire."[4]

  1. The Queen v Biron, 1975 CanLII 13 (SCC), [1976] 2 SCR 56, par Martland J
    R c Roberge, 1983 CanLII 120 (SCC), 4 CCC (3d) 304, par Lamer J
  2. R c STP, 2009 NSCA 86 (CanLII), 893 APR 1, par MacDonald CJ
  3. R c Harding, 2010 ABCA 180 (CanLII), 482 AR 262, par curiam, au para 29
  4. R c McCowan, 2011 ABPC 79 (CanLII), 509 AR 202, par Fradsham J

Confidential Sources and Informers

Procedure

Voir également: Arrest Procedure

When an accused challenges the grounds of a warrantless arrest, trial fairness requires that the onus is on the Crown to establish the reasonable and probable grounds on direct examination and the defence must be permitted to cross-examine the officer.[1]

  1. R c Besharah, 2010 SKCA 2 (CanLII), 251 CCC (3d) 516, par Smith JA, au para 35

Types of Observations Forming Grounds of Arrest

An observed "hand to hand" exchange without any suggestive circumstances is no reasonable basis to conclude an illegal activity.[1]

However, certain activities may be interpreted using expertise and experience may be found to be reasonably believed to be connected to illegal activity.[2]

Marijuana Smell (Pre-October 2018)

The use of the smell of fresh marijuana as grounds to arrest requires an opinion with "substantial underpinnings and training and/or experience" and still be considered with caution.[3]

In many circumstances, there should be some corroboration by another individual.[4]

Observation of a "very strong smell" alone may in some circumstances be sufficient to arrest.[5]

  1. R c Russell, 2017 ABQB 298 (CanLII), par Goss J, au para 35
    R c NO, 2009 ABCA 75 (CanLII), 186 CRR (2d) 60, par curiam, aux paras 41 and 42
  2. R c Rajaratnam, 2006 ABCA 333 (CanLII), 214 CCC (3d) 547, par curiam, au para 25
  3. R c Quesnel, 2018 NSSC 221 (CanLII), par Scaravelli J, au para 48
  4. , ibid., au para 48
  5. R c Harding, 2010 ABCA 180 (CanLII), 256 CCC (3d) 284, par curiam

Citizen's Arrest

Voir également: Arrest by a Citizen

See Also