Supreme court set to consider privacy rights

By Rightnow289 · Dec 11, 2008 · ·
  1. Rightnow289
    Growing chasm between civil libertarians and interests of law enforcement agencies

    When Ontario Provincial Police Constable Brian Bertoncello spotted a rented SUV being driven sedately along a Northern Ontario highway at precisely the speed limit on Oct. 24, 2004, it immediately set off his internal radar.
    Switching on his flashing lights, Constable Bertoncello brought the vehicle to a stop. "It's very rare that you get somebody driving directly on the speed limit," he explained later.

    The officer's suspicions grew as he questioned the nervous-looking occupants of the vehicle, Bradley Harrison and Sean Friesen, who had driven non-stop from Vancouver.

    Constable Bertoncello proceeded to rip open two boxes in a storage compartment at the back of the SUV - uncovering 35 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of between $2.4-million and $4.6-million, and launching a major Charter of Rights case that will reach the Supreme Court of Canada today.

    Police and criminal lawyers are watching the case intently, as the court will decide whether the immensity of the drug seizure justified it being admitted as evidence at Mr. Harrison's trial - notwithstanding the damage to his privacy rights.

    "Rights are not free," lawyers Frank Addario and Jonathan Dawe argue in a brief to the court on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
    "The police would catch more criminals if they did not have to obey the law and respect the Charter.

    "It is one of the inevitable consequences of entrenching rights in the Constitution and taking them seriously that some criminals will escape justice who might otherwise be caught and punished," they said.
    All parties are agreed on one point: Constable Bertoncello's impetuous conduct was irresponsible. At Mr. Harrison's trial, Mr. Justice Norman Karam of the Ontario Superior Court described the stop as "somewhat incredible ... brazen and flagrant.

    "I am satisfied that his explanations for stopping the vehicle and detaining the two accused are contrived and defy credibility. I'm satisfied that the breaches were extremely serious," he said.
    But that is as far as Judge Karam was willing to go. He refused to exclude the evidence, concluding that the breach of Mr. Harrison's rights "paled" in comparison to his criminal conduct.

    In a legal brief on behalf of Mr. Harrison, defence counsel Marie Henein implored the court not to gut a key section of the Charter of Rights. She warned that it is fast reaching a point where evidence is not excluded unless it involves an innocuous amount of marijuana, or the defendant has been physically beaten by the police.

    Listing 15 recent cases where lower-court judges permitted the use of tainted evidence, Ms. Henein pronounced it "an alarming pattern."
    However, federal prosecutors James Martin and Rick Visca maintain that the public is scandalized whenever an erring police officer is "punished" by having a major drug seizure excluded from evidence.
    They said the embarrassment of being admonished by a judge amounts to sanction enough for a police officer.

    "Any suggestion that the protections afforded by the Charter are somehow eviscerated in such instances is pure hyperbole," they added.
    The growing chasm between civil libertarians and those sympathetic to the interests of law enforcement was evident in a 2-1 split when the Ontario Court of Appeal heard the Harrison case this year.

    Associate Chief Justice Dennis O'Connor and Mr. Justice James MacPherson ruled that the Charter breaches had been minimal compared with the horrors of large-scale drug trafficking. Writing in dissent, Madam Justice Eleanore Cronk decried the growing erosion of liberties that takes place when police are permitted to flout the laws governing detention and seizure.

    Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
    By Kirk Makin

    Share This Article


  1. chillinwill
    Top court throws out cocaine bust

    OTTAWA -- Even the discovery of cocaine worth up to $4 million was no excuse for a police pull-over and search that trampled Charter rights, says Canada's top court.

    The Supreme Court of Canada has thrown out a drug conviction linked to the 2004 seizure because the officer who hit the narcotics motherlode "flagrantly" breached his suspect's Charter protections.

    The high court ruled 6-1 to acquit Bradley Harrison.

    It was one of four judgments handed down yesterday that clarify legal limits for judges and police when it comes to evidence obtained through detention or searches that cross the Charter line.

    The rulings underscore that any breach of rights must be carefully balanced against the value of the evidence, how it was obtained and the facts of each case.

    In the Harrison case, the high court overruled both the trial judge and the majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal in stressing that a provincial police officer went much too far.

    "While an officer's 'hunch' is a valuable investigative tool -- indeed, here it proved to be highly accurate -- it is no substitute for proper Charter standards when interfering with a suspect's liberty," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin for the court.

    The judgments come at a time when the Harper government is in the midst of a law-and-order crackdown, especially for drug crimes.

    Vancouver in particular has suffered a recent spate of gang shootings linked to the marijuana and narcotics trade.

    "It is true that the public interest in having the case adjudicated on its merits favours the admission of the evidence, particularly in light of its reliability," McLachlin acknowledged.

    "On the other hand, the impact on the accused's rights, while not egregious, was significant.

    "Bulking even larger, however, was the police misconduct involved in obtaining the evidence. This was far from a technical or trivial breach."

    Rather, it involved "brazen and flagrant" disregard of Harrison's rights against arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure, she said, quoting the trial judge.

    Nonetheless, both the trial judge and the majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal swept aside those violations. Both deemed that the value of the evidence mitigated those tactics -- a rationalization that critics likened to knee-capping the Charter.

    On Oct. 24, 2004, the Ontario Provincial Police officer stopped the Dodge Durango near Kirkland Lake, Ont., that Harrison and a friend had rented two days earlier at the Vancouver Airport.

    The constable had noticed the vehicle was missing a front licence plate.

    He quickly realized, however, that the Durango was registered in Alberta and didn't require a front plate.

    That's where the matter should have ended, wrote McLachlin. Instead, the officer told court that since he already had his lights flashing, the "integrity" of the police required he pull the vehicle over.

    Harrison said he couldn't find his driver's licence. A computer search revealed that it was suspended. The officer arrested Harrison on that basis, but then said he searched the vehicle in hopes of finding the lost licence -- even though it was by now irrelevant.

    Two cardboard boxes in the back of the SUV contained 35 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of up to $4 million.

    Harrison was originally sentenced to five years in prison.

    By the Canadian Press
    July 18, 2009
    Edmonton Sun
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!