# data[].attributes.body
Dale was charged with a breach of probation after being caught under the influence of alcohol. Dale was riding in the back seat of a car that was stopped at a R.I.D.E program. Constable Graveline, the officer who was running the ride program, asked for identification from the people in the vehicle. Graveline ran the information through the CPIC and it was discovered that the accused was on probation with a condition prohibiting him from possessing or consuming alcohol. Dale was then arrested.

# data[].attributes.body
Patrick Dale is charged with breach of probation for drinking alcohol while he was prohibited to. It is thought that Dale should be found guilty if the Charter Application isn't successful.

The Charter Application alleges a violation of sections 8, 9 and 10(b) and asks that all evidence after Dale was detained by Constable  Graveline on the night of question would be excluded.

# data[].attributes.headline
03:  POSITIONS OF CROWN AND ACCUSED:  LINDSAY CROUT

# data[].attributes.subject
03:  POSITIONS OF CROWN AND ACCUSED:  LINDSAY CROUT

# data[].attributes.body
The accused believes he was subject to an unreasonable search and that he was arbitrarily detained when the officer’s attention turned from a legitimate investigation of the driver under the Highway traffic Act to the Applicant.

The Crown believes that Dale was not detained until he was asked to step out of the vehicle, after the officer already had the evidence they needed to arrest him.

# data[].attributes.headline
05:  PRECEDENT:  R v. THERENS:  KATELYN LABOMBARD

# data[].attributes.subject
05:  PRECEDENT:  R v. THERENS:  KATELYN LABOMBARD

# data[].attributes.body
In  the case R v. THERENS, it was found that as, a general rule, one can not “regard compliance with a demand or direction by a police officer as truly voluntary”. This is because of the elements of psychological compulsion to do what the ‘reasonable person’ would do, so as to not “ risk the application of physical force or prosecution for willful obstruction”.  Even in situations like R v. DALE, when there is “in fact a lack of statutory or common law authority for the demand or direction and therefore an absence of criminal liability for failure to comply with it”.
The case R v. THERENS, also brings to light that “a request for information or identification documentation from a vehicle passenger amounts to a search or seizure within the meaning of s.8 of the Charter”. This is exactly what occurred in R v. DALE, when the officer took Mr. Dale’s birth certificate and proceeded to walk back to the cruiser. Therefore because his identification was ‘seized’ from him he should have been promptly read his rights; which he was not.

# data[].attributes.body
Precedent R v Mellenthin:
- When someone is detained they may answer but the information provided by them will only be valid in court if the accused is read his/her rights
- When the officer asked the questions he did he had no idea of the answer, but the accused was not read his rights therefore the answer given will not be valid in a Court
- The appellant was not aware of his rights here and felt he was obligated to answer and allow the search by the officer, as the Crown's responsibility was to make sure that the appellant was aware of these rights and was not the evidence found will not hold up in court
- the knife found was found under breach of the Charter as the officer did not have a right to search the vehicle without a probable cause

# data[].attributes.body
The final decision was said not guilty and all evidence was excluded. This violations made were of section 8 when the officers were unfaithful to their duties, they abused their duties in regards to the R.I.D.E  program and specifically affected Mellenthin, Pinto and Harris. It used to be that any person operating a vehicle had the freedom to do so under the Charter rights but now stated under section 1 legal spots are permitted. But the fact at hand would be that the stops are now being taken advantage of and crossing a legal line. R.I.D.E programs are being used for unwarranted searches and inspections of vehicles. Exclusions is becoming more common because of the fact police officers are disobeying their daily roles in society. inclusion is also favored by the third prong because the evidence in front of the court shows guilt. After serious deliberation the evidence is excluded because it interferes with the long term effects of the current justice system. With good points from Harris and Grant they still would not have known that the officers would ignore important findings

# data[].attributes.body
KAITLYND SAURIOL

In the Pinto case it says that an officer has the authority to pull over people who pose a threat to the safety of the roadways other occupants, however this action is an abuse of authority when pulling somebody over becomes targeting investigating an exterior violation apart from the initial purposes of pulling somebody over for driving unsafely the pull over becomes a different case altogether.
this ties into Dale RV. because he to was being subjected  to police enforcement putting him in custody for a separate reason than what the RIDE program purposes is they were not in violation of road way safety's they were found to be on probational requirements so their for the police acted upon the highway traffic act because Dale and Pinto were obtained by police by exercising their authority out of context.

# data[].attributes.headline
10:  IMPACT OF DECISION ON THE FUTURE:  TAYLOR SUL

# data[].attributes.subject
10:  IMPACT OF DECISION ON THE FUTURE:  TAYLOR SUL

# data[].attributes.body
The decision of finding the accused not guilty as well as finding that section 8, 9 and 10(b) of the Charter were all violated will have a large impact on things in the future. For starters, hopefully Dale will have some more faith in the legal system now even though things went bad for him previously with officers. He may also choose to stay farther away from alcohol as he was very close to being caught breaking probation. On the other hand, police, particularly those at R.I.D.E. stops, should be well aware now that they cannot get away with violating sections of the Charter by running people through the CPIC and detaining them without immediately reading them their rights.

# data[].attributes.body
TAYLOR SUL: I think that sections 8, 9 and 10(b) were all violated as the judge stated in the case because once the Constable had Dale's original birth certificate he was being detained and was not read his rights at that time. It is also my belief that police should not be able to run people's identity through CPIC as "R.I.D.E. programs are to catch and deter drinking drivers."
Katelyn Labombard: I believed that Mr. Dale’s rights were thoroughly violated by the police. Though he was breaking his probation, because these policemen were not thoroughly aware of his charter rights and the precedent surrounding them, they acted wrongly , making there finding inadmissible in court. Thus so I believe that the Ontario government should make it necessary for police to know some of the key president and protocol surrounding their duties, so that things like this don’t happen and waste the courts time and taxpayers money.