Article content continued

In the first place, there is nothing illegal, unusual or suspicious about a driver not matching the description of the registered owner

Charney ruled the officer had no lawful authority to stop the vehicle. He wrote that the officer “took advantage of the arbitrary detention to unlawfully search the vehicle” and ruled that the stop represented “very serious” violations of the charter.

MacKinnon said he saw the car leaving a motel that was known as a hotbed of prostitution and drug activity, and he was concerned for the woman’s safety. He pulled the car over after running the licence plate, noting that neither person in the car appeared to match the description of the vehicle’s listed owner, who was born in 1965.

“The police officer’s initial suspicions and concerns for the safety of the young white female were based on the fact that she was seen in the company of a black male,” Charney said in his written decision. “There was really nothing more to it than that.”

When MacKinnon pulled over the car, O’Grady asked why she had been stopped and the officer told her she didn’t look like she was born in 1965.

The officer said he smelled a strong odour of marijuana in the car, and noticed ash on the console and gearshift. He then called for backup and searched the car, finding marijuana, the ruling said. The couple was then arrested, and when the officers continued to search the car, the decision said they found other drugs as well.

The officer’s arrest report stated that his primary reason for stopping the car was the fact that the driver and passenger didn’t match the registered owner.