The trial judge in this case found that the violations of section 10(b) were sufficient to justify the exclusion of the evidence. On the other hand, the section 9 violation was not found to be serious. Indeed, it is not until the exclusion analysis that the decision explicitly acknowledges that there was an arbitrary detention at all: the focus of the discussion surrounding section 9 concerned the ways in which the detention was lawful. It is worth teasing out a bit, because it is a situation that arises frequently, and around which there is plenty of room for debate.