Gladue therefore left open whether a telephone line associated with a dial-a-dope scheme is similar to a “location” where
it is reasonably suspected that criminal activity is taking place, as
the concept of “location” is understood in Barnes. It also confirmed that the requirement of a reasonable suspicion must nevertheless be met for the police to be engaged in a bona fide
inquiry: see, also, Barnes, at p. 463 S.C.R.; Bruce A. MacFarlane,
Robert J. Frater and Croft Michaelson, Drug Offences in Canada,
4th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2015), at s. 26:80.40.
Importantly, however, the reasonable suspicion analysis for bona
fide inquiries shifts away from a particular individual. In Barnes,
it was directed at “a location where it [was] reasonably suspected
that criminal activity [was] taking place” (p. 461 S.C.R.). In a
dial-a-dope case, where there is no set location, it should be
directed at the phone line.
 The concurrence suggests that it is incongruous for the
police to reasonably suspect that a particular phone line is being
used for a dial-a-dope scheme, but not reasonably suspect that the
person who answers that phone to be engaged in drug trafficking.
I disagree. Reasonable suspicion may be directed at a particular
individual or, as in Barnes and these cases, a particular location
or particular phone line. In Barnes, for instance, Lamer C.J.C.
observed that the factors that drew the officer’s attention to the
particular accused were not sufficient to give rise to reasonable
suspicion that he specifically was engaged in criminal activity
(p. 460 S.C.R.). Rather, it was the fact that the accused was in
a particular area where it was reasonably suspected that drug
activity was occurring that allowed the police, as part of a bona
fide inquiry, to present him with the opportunity to sell drugs
(pp. 461-62 S.C.R.). In my view, in much the same way, when the
police have reasonable suspicion that a phone line is being using
in a dial-a-dope scheme, they should be allowed to provide opportunities to a person associated with that phone line, even if they
do not have reasonable suspicion that the person is himself or
herself engaged in drug-related activity.
 It follows that, because reasonable suspicion may be
directed at a particular individual, a particular location or a particular phone line, the relevant considerations will vary depending on the context. This means that certain facts may support
a finding that the police had reasonable suspicion that a particular phone line is being used in a dial-a-dope scheme, but not that
the particular individual who is using that phone line is engaged
in criminal activity, or vice versa. While there may be overlap,
different considerations may take on different weight in the
analysis. For example, the fact that a phone line has been linked