R v.

Roy

Introduction:
Good afternoon, Chief Justice and esteemed members of the jury. My name is Miller, first initial J and my
colleague Misola, first initial C, and I are here representing the Canadian government pertaining to the case
of R v. Roy.

Opening:
- Grant test: under section 24(2) states that ‘evidence obtained in a manner that infringed or
denied any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter must be excluded

On the evening of October 31, 2012 officers Stopp and Stereo were in a high crime area patrolling
the community in accordance with C.O.P.P. A COPP was designed to monitor high-crime areas in which the
assigned officers speak and engage with individuals ensuring the safety of others in the community. Officer
Stopp and stereo saw Mr. Roy separated from his group once making contact with them, in which he began
walking away from the officers to avoid them. The officers called out to him, however Mr. Roy continued to
walk. Subsequently, the officers rode their bikes until they were caught up to him. After which, Mr. Roy
VOLUNTARILY stopped walking. Upon identification of Mr. Roy, a pursuit for Mr. Roy had begun as the
defendant turned away and ran from officer Stereo and Stopp. Officers also found a small backpack behind
a dumpster after the chase in which belonged to Mr. roy, subsequently after finding Mr. Roys identification
inside the backpack. Emptying the contents of the bag a loaded handgun was discovered.

To continue, the defense brings forward section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, submitting that the evidence of the fireman is to be excluded as a violation of his rights has been
infringed upon. Respectively speaking, section 24(2) CCRF DOES NOT infringe on Mr. Roy’s charter
rights. We the respondent brings forth that section 24(2) under subsection (1) , concludes that ‘evidence
that was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms by this charter must be
excluded if it’s admission would bring the administration of justice into dispute’. Therefore, through
examinition of the Grant test, Mr. Roy’s rights have not been violated.

Every individual who submits a violation under section 24(2) of their charter right, also submits
that evidence must be excluded as it was obtained through a violation of their rights. Through the
admissibility of the evidence, the obtainment is justified in accordance with Mr. Roy’s rights. Being said,
esteemed judge and members of the jury, I encourage you to respectively look at this case through the facts
of the story and proper noting of what the Charter follows.

Argument 2:
The applicant proceeds under section 24 (2) of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms.
Stating that the obtainment of the firearm discovered in his ownership had been in violation of his
charter rights. Taking a more in depth look of section 24 (2), gives all individuals the right of
exclusion of evidence IF the evidence in question had been obtained. Under subsection (1) of 24(2)
of the charter, a court concludes that ‘evidence obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any
rights by this charter, the evidence shall be excluded’ in the defendants case, Mr. Roy’s rights were
justified and so was the obtainment of the firearm.

Subsequently, after the pursuit of the defendant, officers P.C Stopp and Stereo had gone back to
retrace their steps after realizing Mr. Roy’s backpack wasn’t on him. The backpack in question in
which Mr. Roy was cautious of after P.C Stopp had reached out for the strap of the defendant's
backpack in which he made a run for. Retracing their steps to when the pursuit began, police
officers had found a small backpack behind a dumpster of a shopping complex, belonging to Mr.
Roy along with his wallet and driver’s license identification which Mr. Roy initially claimed at
first to ‘not have on him’. Also following a loaded handgun inside the backpack.

Under section 8 of the charter, Mr. Roy’s search for seizure of his backpack was reasonable and
did not interfere with his rights in accordance with the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.
The moment Mr. Roy had dropped his backpack WILLINGLY during his flee and also to add,
BEHIND a dumpster in a PUBLIC area, Mr. Roy had ultimately given up his ‘reasonable
expectation of privacy’ rights at that point. All in which authorities had all the right within the
search and seizure of Mr. Roy’s backpack. Moreover, it’s important to note where Mr. Roy had left
his back and why. Set in a public setting behind the dumpster of a shopping complex also within a
discreet place to hide the contents of his backpack in which the loaded firearm had been found
subsequently after. Mr. Roy had abandoned his privacy interest after willingly dropping his
backpack; unprotected and within easy reach of any person walking by.

Relatively speaking, although there had been no warrant for seizure of the backpack, we
submit that Mr. Roy had thrown away the backpack during the pursuit ultimately giving up any
privacy interest he had held in the backpack and any expectation of privacy after he threw it away
during the chase.

Moreover, with respect to societies involvement in the justice system, we must have
regard to (1) the seriousness of the charter- infringing state conduct, (2) the impact of the breach on
the charter protected interests of the accused and (3) society's interest in the adjudication of the
case on its merits. In respect to the third factor, there is an overwhelming and considerable public
interest. The evidence discovered upon Mr. Roy was a LOADED handgun in which he was in
possession of with no proper authorization.

Therefore, the obtainment of evidence of Mr. Roy’s firearm had been obtained within his
charter rights in accordance to no violation of section 8 of the charter and section 24(2). The search
and seizure of Mr. Roy’s rights have been found to be reasonable and justified. In mention from
before, the obtainment of Mr. Roy’s backpack had been found in a public area. A public area in
which Mr. Roy had abandoned his privacy interest after dropping his backpack during his pursuit.
Argument 1:
To begin, the police officers, P.C Stopp and P.C Stereo are members of Community Officers Proactive
Policing, also known as the C.O.P.P. This is an initiative which is designed to patrol areas of high-crime and
to engage with and speak to individuals. On the evening of the encounter with Mr. Roy, the officers were on
official duty pertaining to said initiative. When passing a group of young men, the officers noticed one man,
later identified as Mr. Roy, who, upon sighting the officers had left the group and walked in the opposite
direction. The officers followed Mr. Roy, and after calling out phrases such as “Hey you” and “Hey man”,
the police officers rode their bicycles until they were parallel to Mr. Roy, after which he voluntarily stopped
walking. It is important to note that at this point, neither officer had used the word “stop” or instructed Mr.
Roy that he was unable to move. Therefore, he was free to leave at any moment, and his rights as outlined
under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms which state that, “everyone has the right not
to arbitrarily detained or imprisoned”, have not been infringed upon.

At this point, the officers had the intention of completing a C.C.C, also known as a Community Contact
Card. This is a common practice in policing, and involves collecting information about individuals that
C.O.P.P officers encounter. Basic information such as name, date of birth, address etc, are the general details
collected. After dismounting their bikes, P.C Stereo asked Mr. Roy for his name and to retrieve his I.D. Mr.
Roy stated that he didn’t have any piece of identification on him, however, he later stated that it was in his
backpack. He was then asked to retrieve the identification from his backpack, at which point Mr. Roy turned
and ran away. After chasing after him, both officers lost sight of Mr. Roy, however, they later caught with
him and noticed that his backpack was no longer on his person. It is determined that Mr. Roy had
disregarded the backpack, they searched the area and found his backpack, in which, they discovered a
LOADED handgun. Only at THIS point, was Mr. Roy detained under ample grounds, and section 10(a) and
(b) of the charter carried out accordingly, which state that, “everyone has the right on arrest or detention, to
be (a), informed promptly of the reasons therefor, and (b), to retain and instruct counsel without delay and
to be informed of that right.”

It is evident that neither Mr. Roy’s section 9 nor 10(a) and (b) rights as outlined in the charter have been
infringed upon, rather they have been carried out when and where necessary.

Legal Issues:
i. Was Mr. Roy detained in violation of his rights under section 9 of the Charter when the police originally
stopped him for the purpose of completing a C.C.C.?
➔ Mr. Roy’s rights as outlined under section 9 of the charter which states; “everyone has the right not
to arbitrarily detained or imprisoned”, have not been infringed upon.
➔ P.C. Stopp testified to the fact that neither officer verbally told Mr. Roy to stop, or that he was
unable to leave. Rather, he willingly stopped and remained in place when the police officers biked
up beside him.
➔ Therefore, unbeknownst to him, he was, in fact, free to leave at any moment.
 ➔ Furthermore, both police officers were performing official duties, as part of the Community
Officers Proactive Policing (C.O.P.P.), in which they were instructed to “patrol high-crime areas of
the city and to engage with and speak to individuals they encounter while on patrol.”
➔ In addition, Mr. Roy was approached with the intent of completing a C.C.C

ii. If not, was Mr. Roy detained at some point thereafter and, in particular, before he was asked about
whether he had anything in his backpack in violation of his section 9, 10(a) and (b) rights?
➔ Mr. Roy’s rights as outlined under section 10(a) and (b) rights,

iii. Was the search of Mr. Roy's backpack unreasonable and in violation of his rights under section 8 of the
Charter?
➔ Under section 8 of the charter, Mr. Roy’s search for seizure of his backpack was reasonable and did
not interfere with his rights in accordance with the charter. Once Mr.Roy had dropped his backpack
during his flee, ultimately he gave up his privacy rights.
➔ Mr. Roy had dropped his backpack and ultimately doing so, he gave up his ‘reasonable expectation
of privacy’.
➔ Mr. Roy had knowingly exposed and dropped his backpack in a public place in which he left
abandonded behind the dumpster of a shopping complex.

iv. If the search was unreasonable, should the loaded handgun be excluded from evidence pursuant to
section 24(2) of the Charter?
➔

Closing:
The facts of this case are simple. Two police officers, P.C Stopp, and P.C Stereo, were instructed to patrol
the area and speak with encountered individuals. Fact. When passing a group of young men, one man, Mr.
Roy, separated from the group and began to speedily walk in the opposite direction of the officers. Fact.
Finding this suspicious, the officers allowed the rest of the group to leave, and followed Mr. Roy. Fact. Mr.
Roy had WILLINGLY stopped to speak with the officers, and after being asked to retrieve his I.D, for the
purpose of completing a C.C.C, from his backpack, Mr. Roy fled and dropped his backpack before once
again meeting the officers. Fact. Upon finding his bag, which Mr. Roy had abandoned, therefore
abandoning his reasonable expectation of privacy, the officers discovered a LOADED handgun. Fact.

Esteemed judge and members of the jury, my colleague and I implore you to consider the evident facts of
this case. In accordance with the Grant test, which states that “when evidence is deemed to have been
obtained through the violation of a charter right, under section 24(2) of the Charter, they may apply to have
the evidence excluded.” It has been determined that Mr. Roy’s rights as outlined under section 8, 9, 10(a)
and (b) of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms, have not been infringed upon. Therefore, the loaded
handgun uncovered in Mr. Roy’s backpack SHOULD be admissible as evidence. At no time was Mr. Roy
physically or psychologically detained by either officer until ample grounds were determined. Moreover,
the reason as to which the officers approached Mr. Roy was merely in order to inact official police business,
in accordance with the C.O.P.P. Which they were, as a reminder, mandated to “engage with and speak to
individuals they encounter while on patrol.” It is imperative to note that at no time before the discovery of
the loaded weapon was; Mr. Roy told that he was unable to leave, were the words “stop” uttered by either
officer, was Mr. Roy placed in handcuffs, cornered, or prevented from leaving. Thus, Mr. Roy’s section 9,
10(a) and (b) rights have been upheld, which state that, “everyone has the right not to arbitrarily detained or
imprisoned” and that “everyone has the right on arrest or detention, to be (a), informed promptly of the
reasons therefor, and (b), to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right.”
Additionally, it is important to remember that as Mr. Roy disregarded his backpack, he disregarded his
reasonable expectation of privacy, therefore foregoing his section 8 charter rights which states “everyone
has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” Subsequently, it is evident that NONE of
Mr. Roy’s charter rights have been infringed upon and in accordance with the Grant test, the loaded hangun
SHOULD be admissible as evidence.

Members of the Supreme Court, my collegue and I have painted you a picture. One in which a guilty man,
in possession of a lethal weapon has roamed the streets. One in which our officers have done their job in an
effective manner. One in which the law has been upheld in accordance with the Canadian Charter of rights
and freedoms. And hopefully one in which, you, the justices have decided that the loaded handgun should
be admissible as evidence in the case of R v. Roy.

Possible Rebuttals:

Discrimination/Racism - P.C Stopp and P.C Stereo were enacting official police business through the
C.O.P.P, for which, they were instructed to “engage with and speak to individuals they encounter while on
patrol.” Neither officer had any intention of stopping the young men with malicious intent or in an
unfeasible manner, rather their pure and sole objective was to ‘engage with and speak to them’ as instructed,
by their initiative. Additionally, note that as Mr. Roy separated from the group, he alone, was followed, yet
the rest of the group, also, young, black men, were allowed to leave freely, without any objection from
either officer.

Psycological detainment by the stance of the officers - It is important to highlight that P.C. Stopp took said
‘X stance’ BESIDE Mr. Roy. Therefore, infront of him would’ve remained completely unobstructed.
Furthermore, if Mr. Roy had the ability to run away and flee as he had, it is evident that an obvious and
unhindered route of escape was available to him, allowing him to walk through if he pleased. Thus, Mr. Roy
was not ‘cornered’ by the officers and no psychological detainment took place as the appellant submits.