The End of Random Traffic Stops
Click here to read: Luamba et la fin des interceptions routières aléatoires.
In the recent decision Luamba v. Procureur général du Québec, the Superior Court of Quebec decided that random traffic stops are unconstitutional in that province. A “random traffic stop” implies that police officers pull over a driver who has done nothing wrong. Officers are not required to satisfy the standards of reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to believe to pull over a driver at random.
The police power to pull over drivers at random was initially upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1990 decision R. v. Ladouceur. In Ladouceur, the Court concluded that random traffic stops result in arbitrary detentions that violate s. 9 of the Canadian Charter; the right to be free from arbitrary detention and imprisonment.
However, applying the Oakes test under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter, the majority of the Ladouceur Court decided that random traffic stops are reasonably justified in a free and democratic society.
Here is a summary of the majority’s reasoning in Ladouceur. The majority noted that random traffic stops are necessary to determine whether an individual is driving without a license, or is driving with a suspended license. These stops also allow police to verify a vehicle’s mechanical fitness, and assess whether a driver is intoxicated. The majority emphasized the deterrent effect of random traffic stops and cited statistics regarding injuries and mortalities associated with intoxicated drivers and unlicensed drivers. The majority also remarked that driving is a highly regulated activity that requires a license. The majority suggested that certain legal safeguards will ensure that the random traffic stop power will not be abused. For instance, police officers cannot use traffic stops to conduct a criminal investigation and that, “once stopped the only questions that may justifiably be asked are those related to driving offences” (see Ladouceur, p. 1287). Judges may exclude unconstitutionally obtained evidence where police officers breach these safeguards. Furthermore, the majority observed that random traffic stops are brief and cause “minimal inconveniences” (see Ladouceur, p. 1286).
The Luamba decision casts aside the Ladouceur decision in the province of Quebec. The Court in Luamba concluded that random traffic stops result in racial profiling and discrimination, and decrease trust in law enforcement. The Court cited empirical studies that show how Black persons are disproportionately pulled-over by the police. Expert evidence, reports, and witness testimony elucidated how random traffic stops can be traumatizing, humiliating, and can cause psychological harm.
In Luamba, the Superior Court of Quebec decided that random traffic stops violate three fundamental rights in a manner that is not justifiable in a free and democratic society:
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter: The right not to be deprived of one’s life, liberty, and security of the person except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice
Section 9 of the Canadian Charter: The right to be free from arbitrary detention and imprisonment.
Section 15 of the Canadian Charter: The right to equality.
In conducting the Oakes under s. 1 of the Charter, the Court in Luamba concluded that random traffic stops failed to satisfy the rational connection requirement. The Court noted that the Government did not produce evidence that demonstrated how random traffic stops improve highway safety. The court also concluded that traffic stops do not minimally impact charter rights and that their detrimental effects outweigh their benefits.
The Luamba decision is important in numerous respects. It casts aside a major Supreme Court of Canada decision in Quebec (note that the decision was appealed and will be heard by the Quebec Court of Appeal). Luamba is also one of the few criminal law decisions where a court concluded that a police power violates the s. 15 Charter right to equality. I have written elsewhere about how s. 15 of the Charter plays virtually no role in criminal law jurisprudence, and why courts should expand the right to equality’s role in the criminal justice system (See e.g.: Rééquilibrer le rôle de la Cour supreme du Canada in the McGill Law Journal). The Court also decided that random traffic stops limit the constitutional right to liberty because they restrict the freedom to drive without being stopped at random for having done nothing wrong.
Recently, my colleague Fernando Belton (director of the Saint-Michel Legal Clinic and Lecturer) and I published an article in the Canadian Bar Review that explores the unconstitutionality of random traffic stops. The article provides additional reasons why traffic stops are unconstitutional, which further supports the court’s reasoning in Luamba. The article is available only in French.
All views expressed in this blog are my own and do not constitute any form of legal advice. The views expressed in this blog do not represent — and are not endorsed by — any academic institution, research centre, or law school.
