[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Suspicion is not proper grounds upon which to conduct a search?

The witness/s were their own two eyes...and the belief that the person was doing something suspicious.

I should have went a little more indepth with regards to the search aspect. Here is what Laskin had to say about the search.

Grant also argued the police questioning amounted to a search that began when they asked him whether he had anything he shouldn't have. Laskin disagreed with this submission, stating:

The divide between questions that begin a search and questions that do not is sometimes not easy to draw. In this case, I am not persuaded that the police's question to the accused "if he ahd anything that he shouldn't" began a search. In my view, the search began at the earliest, after the accused admitted to the possession of marijuana. At that point, however, the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused. Then, when in answer to (the uniformed officer's follow up question, "is that it?" the accused admitted to carrying the revolver, the police had the right to search the accused, incident to arresting him. Indeed they had that right even if they did not arrest him.

The question was general in nature and police had not already formed the intention to conduct a search. This is unlike other cases, where accused persons were asked to empty their pockets, questioned about the content of their open gym bag or asked what was in their pocket after police had touched it and felt a hard lump. Although those questions amounted to a search, the nature of the officer's question in this case did not since they were asked in a different context. Since there was no search, there was no violation under S.8 of the Charter (Unreasonable search).

So technicaly it wasn't a search as far as the Charter was concerned. They were just asking questions.