View source for Ancillary Powers Doctrine

{{Currency|January 2018}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderWarrantless}}
==General Principles==
{{seealso|Statutory Warrantless Search Powers|Role of Law Enforcement}}
While the law imposes "broad general duties" on police. There are only limited powers to execute these duties.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Simpson|1npnx|1993 CanLII 3379 (ON CA)|12 OR (3d) 182}}{{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{atp|194}} ("The law imposes broad general duties on the police but it provides them with only limited powers to perform those duties. Police duties and their authority to act in the performance of those duties are not co-extensive. Police conduct is not rendered lawful merely because it assisted in the performance of the duties assigned to the police. Where police conduct interferes with the liberty or freedom of the individual, that conduct will be lawful only if it is authorized by law.")
</ref>
Where conduct interferes with the liberty of an individual, the conduct must be "authorized by law."<ref>
{{ibid1|Simpson}}
</ref>

The common law ancillary powers doctrine permits a police officer to interfere with a person's liberty or privacy during the lawful execution of their duty as long at the actions satisfy the following (The ''Waterfield'' test):<ref>
{{UKCase|Waterfield|, [1963] 3 All ER 659}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Stenning|1twq9|1970 CanLII 12 (SCC)|[1970] SCR 631}}{{perSCC-H|Martland J}}, pp. 636-637 - first application of waterfield in Canada<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Brown v Regional Municipality of Durham Police Service Board|6gkq|1998 CanLII 7198 (ON CA)|131 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perONCA|Doherty JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Dedman v The Queen|1ftwf|1985 CanLII 41 (SCC)|[1985] 2 SCR 2}}{{perSCC|Le Dain J}}<br>
{{supra1|Waterfield}} ("..was the officer acting within the course of his duties and was the conduct in question a justifiable use of police powers associated with that duty.")
</ref>
# the police are acting in the execution of their duties under common law or statute; and 
# conduct constitutes a justifiable interference with individual liberty or privacy.

This doctrine has never been so expansive as to justify conduct in execution of policing duties.<ref>
{{supra1|Brown}}{{atp|250}} (“[t]he common law ancillary power doctrine has never equated the scope of the police duties with the brea[dth] of the police powers to interfere with individual liberty in the performance of those duties”)
</ref>

The test is contextual and focuses on the degree to which there is a connection between the anticipated or actual crime and the individual whose rights are affected.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Figueiras v Toronto (Police Services Board)|ggwxd|2015 ONCA 208 (CanLII)|320 CCC (3d) 437}}{{atL|ggwxd|47}} ("The Waterfield analysis is contextual, and one of the most important elements of context is the degree to which the police can link an individual whose rights are affected by police conduct to an actual or anticipated crime.")
</ref>

; First Stage
Under the first stage, "police powers are recognized as deriving from the nature and scope of police duties", including, “the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime, and the protection of life and property”.
<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Mann|1hmp1|2004 SCC 52 (CanLII)|[2004] 3 SCR 59}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}{{atL|1hmp1|26}}<br>
{{supra1|Dedman}}{{atp|32}}
</ref> 
In other words, this stage asks "whether the action falls within the general scope of a police duty imposed by statute or recognized at common law”<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MacDonald|g2ng9|2014 SCC 3 (CanLII)|[2014] 1 SCR 37}}{{perSCC|Lebel J}}{{atL|g2ng9|35}}<br>
</ref>

; Second Stage
The second stage balances "the competing interests of the police duty and of the liberty interests at stake". 
<ref>
{{supra1|Mann}}{{atL|1hmp1|26}}<br>
</ref>This aspect includes:
#"whether an invasion of individual rights is necessary in order for the peace officers to perform their duty", and 
#"whether such invasion is reasonable in light of the public purposes served by effective control of criminal acts on the one hand and on the other respect for the liberty and fundamental dignity of individuals."

The police action must be "reasonably necessary" for the carrying out of the duty "in light of all the circumstances."<ref>
{{supra1|MacDonald}}{{atL|g2ng9|36}} (the police conduct must be "reasonably necessary for the carrying out of the particular duty in light of all the circumstances")<br>
{{supra1|Mann}}{{atL|1hmp1|39}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Clayton|1kt5v|2005 CanLII 16569 (ON CA)|194 CCC (3d) 289}}{{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{atsL|1kt5v|21|}} and atsL-np|1kt5v|29|}}<br>
{{supra1|Figueiras}}{{atL|ggwxd|85}}<br>
</ref>
This will include consideration of:<ref>
{{supra1|MacDonald}}{{atL|g2ng9|37}}<br>
</ref>
# the importance of the performance of the duty to the public good<ref>
{{supra1|Mann}}{{atL|1hmp1|39}}<br></ref>
# the necessity of the interference with individual liberty for the performance of the duty<ref>
{{supra1|Dedman}}{{atp|35}}<br> 
{{supra1|Clayton}}{{atsL|1kt5v|21|, 26 and {{atsL-np|atsL|1kt5v|31|}}<br></ref>; and
# the extent of the interference with individual liberty<ref>Dedman{{atp|35}}<br></ref>

If these "factors, when weighed together, lead to the conclusion that the police action was reasonably necessary, then the action in question will not constitute" an "unjustifiable use of... police powers."<ref>
{{supra1|MacDonald}}{{atL|g2ng9|37}}<br>
</ref>

; Interpretation of Ancillary Powers
This common law test is to be interpreted with s. 31 of the Interpretation Act in mind.
{{quotation2|
31<br>
{{removed|(1)}}
; Ancillary powers
(2) Where power is given to a person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing, all such powers as are necessary to enable the person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of the act or thing are deemed to be also given.
<br>
; Powers to be exercised as required
(3) Where a power is conferred or a duty imposed, the power may be exercised and the duty shall be performed from time to time as occasion requires.
<br>
{{removed|(4)}}
R.S., 1985, c. I-21, s. 31; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 203.
|[{{IASec|31}} IA]
|{{NoteUpIA|31|2|3}}
}}

There is always a balance between police powers and individual liberties. There are no bright-line rules and each will turn on the facts.<ref>
{{supra1|Brown v Regional Municipality of Durham Police Service Board}}{{atL|6gkq|62}}</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Police Duties==
Police have a common law duty to preserve peace, prevent crime, and protect life and property.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Mann|1hmp1|2004 SCC 52 (CanLII)|[2004] 3 SCR 59}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}{{atL|1hmp1|26}}<br>
</ref>
There is also the power to "control access" to certain "areas" relevant to their duties. 
This includes "establishing a perimeter" around to protect:<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Figueiras v Toronto Police Services Board|ggwxd|2015 ONCA 208 (CanLII)|320 CCC (3d) 437}}{{perONCA|Rouleau JA}}{{atL|ggwxd|59}}
</ref>
* an officer affecting an arrest <ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Wutzke|1k6hz|2005 ABPC 89 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|McDonald J}}{{atsL|1k6hz|60| to 66}}<br>
</ref>
* an officer questioning a witness or suspect<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Dubien|1t90l|2000 CanLII 21536] (QC CM)|[2000] Q.J. No 250}} ''per'' Gravel J{{atsL|1t901|14| to 26}} (C.M.)<br>
</ref>
* protecting a crime scene to preserve evidence<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Edwards|1gbht|2004 ABPC 14 (CanLII)|25 Alta LR (4th) 165}}{{perABPC|Allen J}}{{AtsL|1gbht|4| to 6}}, {{AtsL-np|1gbht|24| to 48}}, and {{AtsL-np|1gbht|66|}}
</ref>
* a hazardous area to preserve public safety, such as those created by fires, floods, or car crash sites.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|R c Rousseau|gczt9|1983 CanLII 2665 (QC CQ)|[1982] C.S. 461}}, ''per'' Cuddihy J, at pp. 461-62, 463-64 (Qc.)<br>
{{supra1|Figuerias}}{{atL|ggwxd|60}}
</ref> 
* a potential target of violent crime in order to ensure the target’s protection<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Knowlton|1xtz2|1973 CanLII 148 (SCC)|[1974] SCR 443}}{{perSCC-H|Fauteux CJ}}{{Atps|447-48}}<br>
</ref>

This perimeter authority  may not be used against protestors' common law right to travel unimpeded on a public highway.<ref>
{{supra1|Figuerias}}
</ref>

Provincially constituted police forces are created by an act of provincial legislatures. Within these Acts there will be some outline of basic duties as a peace officer.<ref>
see:<br>
NLD: Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992, SNL 1992, c R-17<br>
NS: Police Act, [http://canlii.ca/t/51ww4 SNS 2004, c 31] at s. 30<br>
ON: Police Services Act, [http://canlii.ca/t/l385 RSO 1990, c P.15] at s. 42<br>
MB: The Police Services Act, [http://canlii.ca/t/lhbb CCSM c P94.5]
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Justifiable Interference==

The justification of police conduct depends on factors such as:<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Godoy|1fqpk|1999 CanLII 709 (SCC)|[1999] 1 SCR 311}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atL|1fqpk|18}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|MacDonald|g2ng9|2014 SCC 3 (CanLII)|[2014] 1 SCR 37}}{{perSCC|Lebel J}}{{AtsL|g2ng9|37|, 39}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Simon|1npnx|1993 CanLII 3379 (ON CA)|79 CCC (3d) 482}}{{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{atp|499}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Wilhelm|g656v|2014 ONSC 1637 (CanLII)|OJ No 1176}}{{perONCA|Hill J}}{{atL|g656v|111}}<br>
</ref>
* the duty being performed;
* the extent to which interference of liberty is necessary to perform duty;
* importance of the duty to the public good;
* the liberty interfered with; and
* nature and extent of the interference.

These considerations must be balanced in the context of all available information, "the existence of any less intrusive alternative, and the strength of the police belief relating to the exigency or danger said to justify an extraordinary intrusion and a necessitous departure from conventional investigative measures."<ref>
{{ibid1|Wilhelm}}{{atL|g656v|112}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Police Conduct===
{{seealso|Reasonable and Probable Grounds|Reasonable Suspicion}}

A police officer is expected to act reasonably in the circumstances.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police|1t3lv|2007 SCC 41 (CanLII)|[2007] 3 SCR 129}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}{{atL|1t3lv|58}}<br>
</ref>
The officer must evaluate the "totality of circumstances" when deciding to act. This includes changes in their circumstances which must be re-evaluated over time. New information cannot be ignored.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Wilhelm|g656v|2014 ONSC 1637 (CanLII)|OJ No 1176}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atL|g656v|113}}<br>
</ref>
The officer can only rely on objective and articulable circumstances, and ''not'' on "profile characteristics" that undermine the assessment of the circumstances.<ref>
{{supra1|Wilhelm}}{{atL|g656v|113}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Chehil|g0qbs|2013 SCC 49 (CanLII)|[2013] 3 SCR 220}}{{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}{{atL|g0qbs|40}}<br>
</ref>

Police are permitted to:
* draw inferences from their observations.<ref>
{{supra1|Wilhelm}}{{atL|g656v|114}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cornell|2bttk|2010 SCC 31 (CanLII)|[2010] 2 SCR 142}}{{perSCC|Cromwell J}}{{atL|2bttk|35}}<br>
</ref>
* rely on investigative training and experience<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MacKenzie|g0qbv|2013 SCC 50 (CanLII)|[2013] 3 SCR 250}}{{perSCC-H|Moldaver J}}{{atsL|g0qbv|15|, 16}}, {{atsL-np|g0qbv|62| to 64}}<br>
</ref>

Police should be given "latitude" when exercising discretion and judgement in difficult or fluid circumstances.<ref>
{{supra1|Cornell}}{{atL|2bttk|24}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Kelsy|fn5w7|2011 ONCA 605 (CanLII)|280 CCC (3d) 456}}{{perONCA| Rosenberg JA}}{{atsL|fn5w7|56|, 57}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Kephart|2dn5p|1988 ABCA 325 (CanLII)|44 CCC (3d) 97}}{{perABCA|McClung JA}}{{atL|2dn5p|10}}<br>
</ref>

Their conduct must be reasonable given what they "should reasonably have been known to them at the time."<ref>
{{supra1|Cornell}}{{atL|2bttk|23}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Burke|fzcl2|2013 ONCA 424 (CanLII)|285 CRR (2d) 6}}{{perONCA|Weiler JA}}{{atsL|fzcl2|44|, 45}}<br>
</ref>
Police ''cannot'' rely upon ''ex post facto'' justification of their conduct.<ref>
{{supra1|Wilhelm}}{{atL|g656v|115}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Examples of Established Intrusions==
There are several established situations that have warranted intrusions of police:<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|McLachlan|h07jb|2017 ONSC 1471 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Labrosse J}}{{atL|h07jb|27}} - lists some of these<br>
</ref>
* [[Investigative Detention|Investigative detention]]<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Mann|1hmp1|2004 SCC 52 (CanLII)|[2004] 3 SCR 59}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}} 
</ref>
* [[Search Incident to Investigative Detention|Search incident to investigative detention]]
* [[Search Incident to Arrest|Search incident to arrest]];<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Cloutier v Langlois|1ft0h|1990 CanLII 122 (SCC)|[1990] 1 SCR 158}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux-Dubé J}}
</ref>
* safety searches; <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MacDonald|g2ng9|2014 SCC 3 (CanLII)|[2014] 1 SCR 37}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}}
</ref>
* emergency roadblocks;
* search incident to emergency roadblocks;
* random vehicle stops;
* roadside sobriety tests (e.g. RIDE programs);<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Dedman|1ftwf|1985 CanLII 41 (SCC)|[1985] 2 SCR 2}}{{perSCC|Le Dain J}}
</ref>
* sniffer-dog searches;<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Kang-Brown|1wnbc|2008 SCC 18 (CanLII)|[2008] 1 SCR 456}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}}
</ref>
* warrantless residential entry incident to 911 phone calls<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Godoy|1fqpk|1999 CanLII 709 (SCC)|[1999] 1 SCR 311}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}
</ref>

An officer may seize a cell phone incident to detention the purpose of officer safety or the potential loss of evidence.<ref>
see {{CanLIIRP|White|1r9gm|2007 ONCA 318 (CanLII)|47 CR (6th) 271}}{{perONCA|Moldaver JA}}{{atL|1r9gm|47}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Inventory Searches===
* [[Inventory Searches]]

===Regulatory Laws===
Regulatory and provincial laws can diminish or eliminate any reasonable expectation of privacy.<ref>
e.g. provincial Highway Traffic Acts of each province<br>
and {{CanLIIRP|Nolet|2b8jp|2010 SCC 24 (CanLII)|[2010] 1 SCR 851}}{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}}<br>
</ref>

Provincial regulatory Acts that authorize police to inspect vehicles will reduce the expectation of privacy.<ref>
{{ibid1|Nolet}}{{atL|2b8jp|31}}<br>
</ref>

The police have a common law power to impound vehicles when enforcing the Ontario highway traffic act. <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Waugh|27tk3|2010 ONCA 100 (CanLII)|251 CCC (3d) 139}}{{perONCA|Blair JA}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Criminal Code===

; Sobriety Tests

[{{CCCSec|254}} Section 254(2)] authorizes police to demand that the accused participate in a field sobriety test.<ref>
see [[Proof of Impairment by Drugs]] and [[Proof of Impairment by Alcohol]]
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
* [[Seizure of Property]], [[Warrantless Seizure Under Section 489]]