Pubdate: Fri, 02 Oct 2015
Source: Abbotsford News (CN BC)
Copyright: 2015 Abbotsford News
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/BkAJKrUD
Website: http://www.abbynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1155
Author: Vikki Hopes

FELGER CONVICTED OF POT TRAFFICKING IN SECOND TRIAL

Based on drug charges from 2009

Pot activist Tim Felger has been convicted of two offences following
his second trial for drug charges laid in Abbotsford in 2009.

Felger was sentenced Sept. 18 in B.C. Supreme Court on one charge of
possession for the purpose of trafficking and one count of trafficking
in marijuana.

Five other trafficking charges were stayed.

Felger was given credit for six months of jail time already served and
will serve no further time. He has also been given a lifetime firearms
ban.

His co-accused Natasha Healy was given an absolute discharge on one
count of trafficking. This means that, although she was found guilty
on that charge, she will receive no sentence and the offence will be
removed from her criminal record after one year.

The charges were laid when Felger operated his former Da Kine store on
Essendene Avenue in Abbotsford.

Felger and Healy were acquitted at their first trial in 2012. Felger's
lawyer successfully argued that undercover officers breached his
client's charter rights when they trespassed on the premises by
ignoring posted signs that stated "no police officers allowed in the
store without a warrant."

Those officers had purchased marijuana inside the store on five
separate days and also observed other people buying pot.

They then used that information to obtain a search warrant, which led
to Felger's arrest and charges in May 2009.

The first trial judge acquitted Felger and Healy, saying all the
evidence had been collected illegally.

The Crown appealed that decision and won a new trial, with the three
judges on the B.C. Court of Appeal in agreement that although the
charter provides a "reasonable expectation of privacy" to individuals,
the sign did not entitle Felger to those privacy rights.

They ruled that the police had not been intrusive and did not obtain
any information that was not readily available to the public, and a
new trial was granted.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt