Mr. Aucoin’s vehicle was stopped in Kentville and a roadside investigation revealed that he was a newly licensed driver who had consumed alcohol. The officer decided to impound Mr. Aucoin’s vehicle and issue him a ticket. A lot of people were milling around and the officer was concerned that Mr. Aucoin might walk away and disappear if he were allowed to remain outside of the police vehicle. He decided to secure Mr. Aucoin in the rear of his cruiser while completing the paper work. The officer conducted a pat-down search for safety reasons. The officer felt something soft in Mr. Aucoin’s pocket. He asked what it was and Mr. Aucoin said ecstasy. That response prompted an immediate arrest. A search incidental to that arrest revealed eight bags containing cocaine and two bags containing 100 green pills. On testing, the pills turned out not to be ecstasy. Mr. Aucoin was tried and convicted for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. He appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that detaining Mr. Aucoin in the back of the cruiser was an unlawful detention — given there were other reasonable means by which the officer could have addressed his concern that Mr. Aucoin might flee. But for that decision there would have been no pat-down search, therefore the pat-down search was also unreasonable. However the officer was not acting in flagrant disregard of Mr. Aucoin’s Charter rights and he was acting in good faith, therefore the cocaine was not excluded and his appeal was dismissed. R. v. Aucoin, 2012 SCC 66
The Supreme Court of Canada specifically pointed out that the law surrounding police powers in the detention context is still evolving. The Court also appeared to put a lot of weight on the reasonable explanations given by the officer. The officer gave a step-by-step explanation of his decisions. The Court specifically quoted portions of the trial transcript where the officer testified that this became “an officer-safety issue” because he had “no idea what an individual could have in his possession that could harm himself or harm me while my back is turned to him”. Also, the officer testified — and the trial judge accepted his evidence — that in patting down Mr. Aucoin, he was not looking for evidence. He was solely concerned about his safety and the safety of the appellant. Contrast that to explanations that the Manitoba Court of Appeal found not to be reasonable in R. v. Kempthorne.