Pubdate: Wed, 31 Aug 2016
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2016 The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Author: Sunny Dhillon
Page: S1

JUDGE SAYS RCMP VIOLATED RIGHTS OF COUPLE IN GROW-OP CASE

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled the RCMP violated the Charter
rights of a husband and wife whose home was linked to a marijuana grow
operation, a dispute that has since come to involve the province's
Civil Forfeiture Office.

Criminal charges against the couple were stayed four years ago, but
the file is still being pursued by the Civil Forfeiture Office - a
government agency that has been criticized for its aggressive attempts
to seize homes, vehicles and cash connected to criminal offences, even
from people who have not been convicted or charged.

David and Jennifer Johnson were arrested in June, 2009, after a raid
at their home in Surrey, B.C. Mr. Johnson was in a vehicle with his
three-year-old son when he was taken into custody. Criminal charges
against the husband and wife were dropped in 2012, after a judge ruled
the case had taken too long to get to trial and the alleged grow op
was "relatively small" at 267 plants.

But five days after criminal charges were stayed, the RCMP forwarded
the file to the Civil Forfeiture Office. The office then began
proceedings to seize $130,000 removed from the home during the police
search.

The Globe and Mail has reported extensively on the Civil Forfeiture
Office, which was introduced as a way to fight organized crime, but
has come to have a far broader reach. Critics have questioned some of
the files it takes on, calling it a cash cow.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Miriam Maisonville in a recent ruling found
police violated the couple's Charter rights.

She said Ms. Johnson was not given an opportunity to call a lawyer for
nearly two hours after police entered the couple's home.

The judge said police also should not have asked Mr. Johnson about a
hydro device before he spoke with counsel.

Mr. Johnson had said he wished to speak with a lawyer who had
represented him in a real estate transaction, although he could not
immediately recall the lawyer's name.

Matthew Jackson, the lawyer who is now representing Mr. Johnson, said
a hearing will be scheduled to determine how the ruling affects the
civil forfeiture case.

"In a criminal case, normally what is sought is exclusion of all the
police evidence. And so that's something that will be on the table in
this case," he said in an interview.

"But the Johnsons will also be seeking … for dismissal of the entire
claim against them on the basis that their Charter rights have been
seriously violated and that the appropriate remedy by the court is to
have this case dismissed."

B.C.'s Ministry of Public Safety, in a statement, said the Civil
Forfeiture Office is reviewing the decision.

"As the case remains active and before the courts no further comment
can be provided," the statement read.

A Surrey RCMP spokesperson said it is the police's role "to
investigate and present the courts with evidence so that they may make
a decision. In light of that, it would be inappropriate for us to make
comment regarding a court ruling."

Justice Maisonville, who delivered her ruling on Friday, did not agree
with all of the Charter breaches alleged by the Johnsons.

Mr. Johnson had argued police used excessive force and pointed guns at
him and his son. But the judge found the officers had their guns in
the "low ready" position, at a 45-degree angle toward the ground.

The judge did find the RCMP failed to file a form with a justice of
the peace outlining exactly what had been taken from the couple's
home. She said that, too, amounted to a Charter breach.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt