Skip to content

Rights violated in B.C. ecstasy case, judge says

Greg Burchell (National Post) – A British Columbia judge has dismissed charges against five men arrested after a 14-month Ecstasy investigation because the RCMP had “run roughshod” over their rights.

Provincial court Judge Paul Meyers blasted the conduct of the investigating officers, saying they acted in bad faith and violated the Charter rights of “each and every accused.”

The scathing judgment, dated June 21 and posted online this week, came after more than two dozen hearings carried out over two years.

Tin Lik Ho, Qing Hou, Shao Wei Huang, Yi Feng Kevin Li and Kai Lai Kyle Zhou were charged with Ecstasy production and production for the purpose of trafficking after a January 2007 raid on three homes and one vehicle in Richmond, B.C. Police seized nearly 100 kg of Ecstasy and nine pill presses, an operation worth an estimated $10-million.

In listing the numerous Charterbreaches,JudgeMeyers wrote that “one might have thought that the investigation took place before the Charter of Rights had been enacted.”

Police read the accused their rights in English, neglecting to bring an interpreter despite acknowledging they suspected Mandarin or Cantonese would be the primary language of most, if not all, of the men and English “their (very distant) second language,” Judge Meyers wrote.

“The police basically just closed their eyes to this real, potential problem, by doing nothing in advance to plan for it.”

When police arrested Mr. Li and Mr. Zhou, the pair were forced to sit on the front lawn in the middle of winter for more than half an hour in only their underwear while waiting to be hosed down for decontamination.

Police also failed to show the search warrant to the accused in at least one of the arrests and failed to file two search warrant reports on time. Police claimed ignorance for filing one three weeks late and had no explanation for not filing one at all.

“‘Ignorance of the law’ is no excuse for a lay person and it certainly is not an excuse for a police officer,” Judge Meyers wrote.

The Mounties’ decision to break down the door of one of the houses was criticized as excessive and unnecessary, and police gave contradictory statements on whether they had actually planned the “dynamic entry.”

Judge Meyers concluded that “the repute of the administration of justice would be adversely affected” if he were to allow any of the evidence gathered during the raids to be admitted in the trial.

While acknowledging there is a strong interest in prosecut-ing those accused of drug trafficking, “society also has a very strong and vested interest in making sure that the police do not run roughshod over the cherished rights that we have proudly enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms Act,” Judge Meyers said.

Michael Le Dressey, the Crown prosecutor on the case, said he could not discuss it and the media contact for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada could not be reached for comment. The Richmond RCMP’s media officer was unavailable and the police did not have anyone else available to address the judge’s criticisms.

The B.C. RCMP’s conduct has been publicly scrutinized in a handful of high-profile cases over the past two years.

A 2009 report on the 2007 Taser death of Robert Dziekanski at a Vancouver airport slammed the four officers in the incident as well as the follow-up investigation, saying police were too willing to use their Tasers and the investigation was flawed. The Mounties involved will appear in court in August on charges of perjury stemming from their testimony at a public inquiry.

An inquiry report released last year on the 1985 Air India bombings blamed a “cascading series of errors” by the government, the RCMP and the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) for the failure to prevent the bombing.

One of the men acquitted has launched a civil suit, claiming his Charter rights were violated in the prosecution and has named the RCMP as a defendant.

The RCMP has been criticized by federal prosecutors for the investigation of the human smuggling ship MV Ocean Lady that landed in B.C. two years ago. Prosecutors said the RCMP was rushed and sloppy in the interview process and their handling of seized documents and evidence.

[Source]

  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Dudley Do-Right, D’oh, Failing to do Their Duties, Shoddy Investigations.

Comment Feed

2 Responses

  1. There is a plethora of wrongs in that judgment and the commentary.

    …”having warrants translated into Chinese or bringing in Chinese interpreters…”.
    Not done and not required by law. Interpreters are utilized as soon as is practicable. The law requires only two languages, English and French-0 on legal documents. Where would that end, and the litigation due to interpretation would be ludicrous.

    “At two homes, police failed to read or show the contents of the search warrant to the homes’ occupants, which is required by law.”
    Only bona fide residents of dwelling houses being searched have standing in respect of search warrants.

    “Because police believed the men had been exposed to toxic chemicals, they called in a fire crew to decontaminate the men by spraying their bodies with cold water.”
    Nothing wrong with that, decontamination has its protocols and bundling persons up in possible contaminated clothes would still require removal for proper decontamination. First responders would also have to undress to be decontaminated.

    “if police brought in portable privacy screens.” Hazmat and decontamination is not the bailiwick of the police. It is the purview of the hazmat experts. Are we to equip all police vehicles with privacy screens?

    “…the judge criticized police for using the “dynamic entry” method…”
    The courts cannot dictate the methodology of the police engaged in the course of their duties. Recent case law suggests that there be some basis for “hard entries”. The presence of a lab, toxic, explosive chemicals, precursors and the like do not lend themselves to waiting for someone to leisurely come to the door. It has not been stated whether or not they did knock and announce first before the “dynamic” entry.

    “Under the law, police are required within a week of executing a search warrant to file a report in court outlining items seized and their grounds for seizing them.”
    The Criminal Code specifies “as soon as practicable” and its to a Justice, on form 5.2 and it does not require the grounds for seizure to be explained.

    “In this case, police didn’t file a report until one month later.”
    Does not matter, it could be thousands of exhibits which take time to account for.

    And if the case was so heinous, so egregious upon the charter, why would the PPSC (who have charge approval and prosecute the offenses) even take it to court? This appears to be more Nanny State judicial lunacy.

    Well-liked. Do you Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 10

    Deepthroat2011.08.3 @ 00:05
  2. Rights violations by RCMP nullify drug-probe evidence

    POSTMEDIA NEWS
    July 31, 2011

    A B.C. Provincial Court judge has tossed out all evidence seized in a massive ecstasy-production investigation after finding that RCMP officers “ignored” the Charter rights of five suspects to such a degree that “one might have thought that the investigation took place before the Charter of Rights had been enacted.”

    In a 34-page ruling, the judge took officers to task for hosing down two half-naked suspects outside their home in the cold, failing to bring in interpreters to read suspects their rights, failing to allow suspects to read warrants and not filing court documents in a timely manner.

    “The officers in charge just did not seem to care,” Judge Paul Meyers wrote.

    “I find that the cumulative violations in this case lead to the conclusion that the officers in charge of this investigation operated throughout in ‘bad faith.’”

    The scathing judgment, dated June 21 and posted online last week, came after more than two dozen hearings carried out over two years.

    RCMP are reviewing the decision to identify any areas of concern and how best to address them, spokeswoman Cpl. Annie Linteau said Friday.

    Over 14 months, RCMP drug investigators watched the comings and goings of several people at multiple locations in Richmond.

    They learned that ecstasy tablets were being produced, packed into foil bags marked “Chinese tea” and then shipped to Toronto and elsewhere – an operation that a police expert later testified was could produce $10 million worth of pills.

    In January 2007, police watched as two men discarded two large plastic garbage bags into a Dumpster.

    Believing the suspects had realized police were watching them and were now dismantling their production plant, officers decided to move in and arrest the suspects.

    The missteps by police, according to the judge, began immediately.

    Even though police had a “pretty good idea” that some of the suspects had limited English skills, police “basically just closed their eyes to this real, potential problem” and did nothing in advance to plan for it, such as having warrants translated into Chinese or bringing in Chinese interpreters, the judge said.

    In at least one instance, a suspect answered “no” when asked by the arresting officer whether he understood his rights after they were read to him.

    “There was no excuse” for not having translators, the judge said.

    At two homes, police failed to read or show the contents of the search warrant to the homes’ occupants, which is required by law.

    At one home, two occupants were forced to lie handcuffed on the front lawn on their stomachs – one was wearing only boxers, the other was wearing boxers and a T-shirt.

    Because police believed the men had been exposed to toxic chemicals, they called in a fire crew to decontaminate the men by spraying their bodies with cold water.

    “It is not an insignificant thing to force someone to stand or sit, halfnaked, while being hosed down in front of their neighbours, in the middle of the day and in the middle of winter,” the judge said.

    “This humiliation so easily could have been avoided” if police brought in portable privacy screens.

    At another location, the judge criticized police for using the “dynamic entry” method of executing a search warrant – busting down the door – when there was no evidence the occupants were armed or dangerous or could hide or dispose of evidence at a moment’s notice.

    Under the law, police are required within a week of executing a search warrant to file a report in court outlining items seized and their grounds for seizing them.

    In this case, police didn’t file a report until one month later.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes