Detective Ward had no information to link the van or its
occupants to the daytime residential break-ins he was investigating. The officer knew about the number of break-ins and the
time and manner of entry. But neither the police, nor Det. Ward,
had a description of any individuals or vehicles that might have
been involved in or associated with these activities. Detective
Ward had seen the same van in the same area twice in five days.
Each time, there was a driver and a passenger. However, on the
first occasion, what happened satisfied Det. Ward that there was
no connection between the van and the break-ins. The occupants
had access to [number omitted] Hislop. They entered the house.
Detective Ward did not see them leave. He thought that one of
the men may have lived there. Scarcely the stuff of articulable
cause or reasonably grounded suspicion.
 Similarly, nothing that happened on October 5, 2009
could ground a reasonable suspicion. The same vehicle. Two
young men. A look from the appellant to Detective Ward as the
appellant drove through the intersection. Nothing more.
 The stop on October 5, 2009 was an arbitrary detention.
The trial judge erred in holding otherwise.
Ground #2: The arrest and search incident to arrest
 This ground of appeal focuses upon the arrest of the
appellant and the search of one of the sealed boxes found in the
interior of the van. Discrete but related claims of constitutional
missteps are made in connection with both the arrest and
 To situate this claim of error in its proper environment
requires a brief reference to some features of Det. Ward’s
The relevant circumstances
 Shortly after Det. Ward walked up to the van and displayed his badge and warrant card at the driver’s window,
the appellant lowered the window. Detective Ward smelled fresh
marijuana from inside the van. On approaching the vehicle,
Det. Ward also noticed several large cardboard boxes piled on
the floor of the van, some abutting the back of the front seats.
Each box was sealed closed with tape. When asked about the
contents of the boxes, the appellant said nothing.
 Detective Ward had prior experience in drug investigations. He was familiar with the smell of raw marijuana from
having participated in dismantling grow ops. He described the
odours from the van as “skunky”.