Approaching people: field contacts and detentions

At 00:40, during proactive patrol in Harbourside, Reyes and Malhotra saw a man walking slowly along Dock Lane, stopping beside parked cars and shining his phone's light through the windows. It was the time and place of the theft pattern Haddad had described at briefing, and the man looked into four cars in the space of a block. Reyes pulled over and asked Malhotra what they had. He asked her the question back: 'What do you think? Can we stop him, or can we just talk to him?' Reyes thought for a moment and said she believed they had reasonable grounds to suspect he was connected to the thefts, which would allow a brief investigative detention. Malhotra agreed, but asked her to start as a conversation and see what she learned before deciding.

This lesson covers one of the most legally sensitive parts of patrol work: approaching people on the street. It explains the difference between a voluntary conversation and a detention, the legal standards for each, the rights a detained person has, and the safety practices that support lawful, respectful contacts. Desjardins reminds the class that a contact that starts as a friendly conversation can become a detention through what officers say and do, and that courts look carefully at that transition. Getting the law right is not separate from officer safety. A stop that a court later finds unlawful may lead to excluded evidence, civil liability and damaged trust.

Voluntary contacts

Police officers, like anyone else, can approach a person and ask questions. In a voluntary contact, the person is free to decline to answer and to walk away, and the officer has no power to make them stay. Officers use voluntary contacts to gather information, check on people's welfare, build relationships and ask about incidents they are investigating. No particular grounds are needed, but how the contact is conducted matters, both legally and for trust.

In Canada, the key question is whether the person was detained. In R. v. Grant (2009), the Supreme Court of Canada held that detention refers to a suspension of a person's liberty interest by a significant physical or psychological restraint. Psychological detention exists where a person is legally required to comply with a police direction, or where a reasonable person in the individual's position would conclude that they had no choice but to comply. Courts consider the circumstances, such as whether the police were providing general assistance or singling the person out for focused investigation; the nature of the police conduct, including the language used, physical contact, the place and the presence of others; and the characteristics of the person, such as age, physical stature, minority status and level of sophistication. In R. v. Le (2019), the Court found that young racialized men in a backyard were detained when officers entered without a warrant and began questioning them, and emphasized that the experiences of racialized communities with police are relevant to how a reasonable person would perceive the encounter.

Haddad tells the students that the safest and fairest voluntary contacts are clearly voluntary. Officers should approach in a relaxed manner, explain who they are and why they are talking to the person, avoid blocking the person's path, and avoid language that sounds like an order. 'If you want it to be a conversation, make it a conversation,' she says. 'If you need to detain, have grounds and say so.' Ambiguous contacts, in which officers act as though the person must stay but have no lawful reason to keep them, are a common source of excluded evidence and complaints.

Investigative detention

An investigative detention is a brief detention to investigate a specific offence. In R. v. Mann (2004), the Supreme Court of Canada held that police may detain a person for investigative purposes if there are reasonable grounds to suspect, in all the circumstances, that the individual is connected to a particular crime and that the detention is necessary. The detention must be brief and conducted in a reasonable manner. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than reasonable grounds to believe: it requires a reasonable possibility, based on objective facts, rather than a reasonable probability. A hunch is not enough, and neither is the fact that a person is in a high-crime area or seems nervous on its own.

Detained people have rights. Under section 10(a) of the Charter, a detained person must be informed promptly of the reasons for the detention. Under section 10(b), they must be informed of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay; in R. v. Suberu (2009), the Supreme Court held that without delay means immediately, subject only to concerns for officer or public safety. A person who is only briefly detained still has these rights, and officers must hold off questioning aimed at getting evidence until the person has had a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel if they ask to. Detained persons are generally not required to answer questions or to identify themselves unless a specific law requires it, for example when driving a vehicle.

Protective searches

In Mann, the Court also held that officers who detain a person for investigative purposes may conduct a protective pat-down search if they have reasonable grounds to believe that their safety or the safety of others is at risk. The search must be limited to what is needed for safety; it is not a search for evidence. Feeling a soft object in a pocket during a pat-down does not justify reaching in and removing it. Desjardins tells the class that in the evidence course in second year they will study a Port Ardent case in which an officer opened a backpack during what he called a pat-down, and the court excluded what he found. Protective searches protect officers, but they are narrow, and the officer must be able to explain the specific safety concern.

Back on Dock Lane

Reyes stepped out of the cruiser, called out 'Evening!' and walked toward the man at an angle, with Malhotra on cover. She said, 'I'm Constable Reyes. We've had a lot of thefts from cars around here at night, and I noticed you looking into a few vehicles. Can you tell me what you're up to?' The man, Kevin Ostrowski, thirty-eight, said he had lost his dog's leash and wallet somewhere on his evening walk and was looking to see whether he had dropped them by the cars. He was polite but nervous. Reyes asked whether he lived nearby; he pointed to a building half a block away.

At this point Reyes had to decide whether to continue as a voluntary conversation or to detain him. She had specific facts: the time, the location of the theft pattern and his behaviour of shining a light into several cars. She also had an innocent explanation that fit some of the facts. She decided that she had reasonable suspicion and that a brief detention was justified to confirm his identity and story, and she told him so. 'Mr. Ostrowski, I'm detaining you for a few minutes while I look into the car thefts. You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, and you can call a lawyer if you want. Do you understand?' He said he understood and did not want a lawyer. He gave his name and date of birth. A records check showed no warrants and no record of thefts. While Malhotra watched, Reyes walked with him along the lane with her flashlight. Two cars back, under the edge of a snowbank, they found a leather wallet with his licence inside, and a red dog leash. Reyes thanked him for his patience and told him he was free to go. The detention had lasted eleven minutes.

In the car, Malhotra asked her why she had not patted him down. She said she had no reason to think he was armed or that anyone's safety was at risk: he was calm, his hands were visible and there was nothing about him that suggested a weapon. Malhotra agreed. 'If you had patted him down, you would have needed to explain why,' he said. 'Reasonable suspicion of a property crime is not the same as a reasonable belief that someone is dangerous.' He also pointed out that she had done something important: she had documented her grounds in her notebook before she got out of the car, writing the time, the location and what she had seen.

# Documenting grounds: list each fact and whether it is specific and observed
facts = [
    ("time 00:40, within theft pattern window 00:00-04:00", True),
    ("location Dock Lane, inside Harbourside pattern area", True),
    ("shone light into four parked cars in one block", True),
    ("man seemed nervous", False),   # common, not specific on its own
    ("wearing dark clothing", False),  # common in winter
]
specific = [f for f, ok in facts if ok]
print("specific, observed facts:", len(specific))
for f in specific:
    print(" -", f)
print("facts that add little on their own:", [f for f, ok in facts if not ok])

specific, observed facts: 3
 - time 00:40, within theft pattern window 00:00-04:00
 - location Dock Lane, inside Harbourside pattern area
 - shone light into four parked cars in one block
facts that add little on their own: ['man seemed nervous', 'wearing dark clothing']

The example reflects the kind of thinking courts expect. Facts that are specific and observed, such as the time, place and behaviour, can support reasonable suspicion when taken together. Facts that are common among innocent people, such as nervousness or dark clothing in winter, add little on their own and can be a sign that an officer is relying on stereotype or hunch. Haddad tells the class that if most of their listed grounds are in the second category, they probably do not have grounds.

Bias and fairness in stops

Decisions about whom to approach and detain are where bias can do the most harm. Research in both countries has found that racialized people, especially Black and Indigenous people, have been stopped, questioned and searched by police at higher rates than others in many places, and that these experiences shape how communities view police. Ontario regulates the collection of identifying information in certain circumstances, sometimes called street checks or carding, and prohibits collecting it arbitrarily or because of a person's race or presence in a high-crime area alone. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has published reports on racial profiling and carding. Desjardins tells the students that the legal tests protect against bias only if officers apply them honestly. Asking 'Would I stop this person if they looked different?' is one practical check.

Ending a contact well

How an officer ends a contact matters as much as how it begins. A person who has been detained and released should be told clearly that they are free to go, thanked for their patience if that is appropriate, and given a brief explanation of why they were stopped if they did not fully understand. Officers should answer reasonable questions and tell the person how to make a complaint or get more information if they ask. Reyes did all of this with Mr. Ostrowski, and Malhotra pointed out that the man's last memory of the encounter would be the officer helping him find his wallet, not the detention. 'People remember how you made them feel,' he said. 'He'll tell his neighbours about tonight. You want that story to be a good one.'

Desjardins adds that a well-ended contact is also good police work. A person who leaves feeling respected is more likely to call police with information in the future, more likely to cooperate in the next encounter and less likely to complain. In a neighbourhood with a theft pattern, residents who trust the officers patrolling at night are one of the best sources of information an investigation can have.