R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 692 - case in description

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240
Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344
Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions
Subscribe to get important Information
https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail.
Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8
https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html
info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca \Show more

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17804/index.do
One evening, five young racialized men, including the 20‑year‑old accused, were gathered in the private backyard of a townhouse at a Toronto housing co‑operative when three police officers arrived. The young men appeared to be doing nothing wrong. They were just talking. Two officers entered the backyard, without a warrant or consent. They immediately questioned the young men and requested documentary proof of their identities. The third officer patrolled the perimeter of the property, then stepped over the low fence enclosing the backyard and directed one of the men to keep his hands where he could see them. One officer questioned the accused, demanding that he produce identification and asking him what was in the satchel he was carrying. At that point, the accused fled, was pursued and arrested, and found to be in possession of a firearm, drugs and cash. At his trial, the accused sought the exclusion of this evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter on the basis that the police had infringed his constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary detention, contrary to ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter. In convicting the accused, the trial judge held that he lacked standing to advance a s. 8 claim, that he was detained only when the officer asked him about the contents of his bag, that the detention was not arbitrary, and that had a breach of Charter rights occurred, the evidence would be admissible. A majority at the Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the accused’s appeal from his convictions.

Held (Wagner C.J. and Moldaver J. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed, the evidence excluded, the convictions set aside and acquittals entered.