A police officer stopped a cyclist for sidewalk violation but actually sought to run a CPIC check. The Court found the officer not lawfully executing his duty when the accused gave him a false name, resulting in obstruction charge dismissal.
In R v L’Huillier, 2019 ABPC 237, the accused was charged with wilfully obstructing a peace officer contrary to section 129 of the Criminal Code after giving a false name during a traffic stop.
A police officer stopped the accused for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. When asked for identification, the accused provided a false name that didn’t appear in the CPIC database, leading to his arrest for obstruction.
The court examined four critical issues: whether police can arrest based on pretextual stops, the propriety of using criminal charges when non-criminal enforcement mechanisms exist, whether a negative CPIC check constitutes reasonable grounds for arrest, and whether an officer can be obstructed in an undecided action.
The presiding judge found the officer’s true purpose was not bylaw enforcement but conducting a general criminal investigation through CPIC checks. The court determined this constituted a pretextual stop, placing the officer outside lawful duty execution.
The court acquitted the accused, finding insufficient evidence to prove obstruction beyond reasonable doubt, as the officer was not lawfully executing his duty during the pretextual stop.
