Law360 Canada ( January 19, 2018, 8:32 AM EST) -- Appeal by the accused from his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in not finding that his rights under ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) were breached. The police stopped the appellant’s vehicle because its colour did not match its registration. The police also knew from a Police Information Portal (PIP) search that the appellant was associated with addresses related to a marijuana grow operation. During the traffic stop, the police officer became suspicious that the appellant was in possession of a controlled substance. A sniffer dog subsequently indicated controlled substances were inside the vehicle. After arresting the appellant for possession of a controlled substance, the police searched the vehicle and discovered approximately 38 pounds of marijuana inside it. The trial judge held that police officer conducting the traffic stop became suspicious that the appellant was in possession of a controlled substance and placed him under investigative detention based on several factors, including the following: the appellant exited the highway and returned to it shortly afterwards in a way that seemed illogical and possibly evasive; the appellant’s route seemed to be inconsistent with his stated destination; the PIP system reports indicated the appellant had been associated with marijuana production; the presence of a cooler and some food in the passenger seat suggested that the appellant did not want to leave the vehicle unattended; the presence of large boxes inside the vehicle similar in nature to those used commonly as props for drug trafficking; and the appellant’s nervousness when he was initially detained. The trial judge found that the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the appellant was involved in a drug offence and his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights were thus not infringed. The trial judge also found that the appellant’s right to counsel was not breached because the officer’s question about his comings and goings was a legitimate question to rule out driver fatigue and therefore one authorized by the Traffic Safety Act. Accordingly, the appellant’s s. 10(b) rights remained in abeyance during that time....