Pubdate: Sat, 05 Aug 2000
Source: New Brunswick Telegraph Journal (CN NK)
Copyright: 2000 New Brunswick Publishing Company
Contact:  http://www.nbnews.com/telegraphjournal/
Author: Bob Klager

LAWYER FOCUSES ON RIGHTS VIOLATION DURING ECSTASY HEARING

The only evidence against a man charged in connection with Atlantic
Canada's largest-ever Ecstasy seizure was obtained through a serious
breach of rights and should be excluded from trial, says his Nova
Scotia lawyer.

During an often highly charged voir dire hearing at provincial court
in Woodstock Friday, Mike Owen argued police had no grounds or warrant
for searching 34-year-old Richard Brian Bagnell's duffle bag following
a single motor-vehicle crash along the TransCanada Highway May 8.

RCMP found more than 8,000 pills of the notorious 'rave drug' in the
bag and subsequently charged the Port Hawkesbury, N.S. man with
possession of Ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking.

"This is a flagrant violation of Mr. Bagnell's rights as a Canadian
citizen," said Mr. Owen, adding the seriousness of the alleged breach
exceeded the seriousness of the discovery, described to the court by
an expert undercover drug enforcement officer as a $60,000 to $80,000
wholesale-value cache of Ecstasy and methamphetamines manufactured by
professionals.

"Yes, it is a serious offence; there's a lot of drugs there worth a
lot of money," said Mr. Owen. "But I think we've hit a line where the
officer was using police safety as an excuse.

"Officer safety is a bogus argument here."

It was the second and final day of testimony at a trial within a trial
to determine the admissability of evidence in the case. Judge Henrik
Tonning had heard testimony from investigating officer Const. Sean
O'Brien that he was concerned for his safety after observing more than
an hour of Mr. Bagnell's suspicous behaviour with the duffle bag
following the crash.

But Mr. Owen accused the officer of "glaring contradictions" between
his testimony and his actions early that spring morning.

"The conduct of officer O'Brien does not reflect a genuine and
bonafide concern for officer safety," Mr. Owen said. "Const.  O'Brien
was suspicious about drugs and he wanted to get in the bag."

His suspicion of the bag grew only from an accumulation of events
after arriving at the scene of the crash near Nackawic, said Const.
O'Brien.

In addition to Mr. Bagnell's immediate and lasting refusal to part
with the bag, an exisiting charge of trafficking Ecstasy revealed
during a CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) check on the
defendant as well as his admitted involvemment in promoting raves in
Halifax and his significant knowledge of Ecstasy offered signs
something wasn't right, he said.

"Where there's drugs there's weapons," said Const. O'Brien, explaining
his insistence on searching the bag for safety reasons.  When he
finally opened the sack while Mr. Bagnell was being tended to at
Carleton Memorial Hospital in Woodstock, the officer discovered
several packets of pills and said he immediately closed and secured
the bag until he could obtain a warrant.

Federal prosecutor Susan Bour cited case law urging the court to look
at the point of view of the police officer at the time he made the
search. She argued Const. O'Brien's actions and concern for safety
were reasonable in light of Mr. Bagnell's "more than passing
attachment" to the bag.

"Part of [Const. O'Brien's] sensitivity to the drug issue was that one
month earlier, he had dealt with an informant who was killed," she
added.

Judge Tonning has reserved judgment on what evidence may go to trial
until Sept. 4.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake