R v Grant

And the court didn't say, "Oh, this, this standard only applies for people in their home." We're talking about imminent threat here.

But maybe we could look at the criteria in Grant, where there was a lower expectation of privacy.

Well, in my opinion, Chief Justice, the expectation of privacy could be, uh, just as high for someone carrying a bag in public as someone in their home and-

[speaking French]

Shemlaal was.

The police officers did not mention that he was free to leave.

But in someone who technically has their full rights, has full right to privacy, and who, according to us, held his bag back through a mere expression of, uh, protecting his privacy and the content of the bag, the criteria should be higher in these cases because no objective-- ex-external and objective evidence was there, contrary to Mackenzie, where there was a known road, and Stairs where there was a history of violence, McDonald where there was a weapon, even Grant there was, uh, uh, there were vows.

In every case, there were-- there was external evidence to support the police officer's decision, and that's what should be under reasonable grounds to believe.