I think if you look at the rosiest, most positive example you can, Professor Hogg might be right. If we're talking about a very brief interaction with somebody on the roadside that happens infrequently, I think there's an argument that it could be saved under section 1. Arguing from that very rosy example is to argue from a place of privilege that a lot of people in our society don't experience.
I think that the section 1 analysis fails when you actually look at what the reality is going to be. We're fooling ourselves if we say that this is going to be different from carding or from the Ottawa police and their traffic stops.
When you look at how it's actually going to play out, it's not going to be a brief stop to reach in and give a roadside in a car. Again, it's going to be removing someone from the car, searching them, shining a flashlight in the car, not letting them have any access to counsel. It's perhaps having them sit in the back of a police car, running their name and information through the system, perhaps asking other questions that can be used against them later on. That's sort of the intrusion that we're looking at.
When there's evidence, as there will be—there's going to be evidence that that intrusion happens more often, all the time, disproportionately to vulnerable and visible minority members of our communities—I think it will change the analysis quite a bit from a sterile, best-case scenario, academic analysis.