[19] Of course the fruits of an investigation cannot be used to assess or justify police interference with Charter-protected rights: Hunter v. Southam Inc., 1984 CanLII 33 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, at para. 27. It would be equally erroneous to reason that the “experience” said to bottom Singh’s “hunch” was somehow based on police officers being gifted with some kind of crime radar not shared by mere mortals, including judges. Not only is this patently irrational, but it may well be empirically unfounded. While the caselaw records dozens of instances of police hunches translating into evidentiary bonanzas, there are no reports of the likely hundreds, if not thousands, of occasions when routine street detentions generate nothing of evidentiary value – for the simple reason that unproductive questioning and searches do not lead to charges or litigation.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.