Pubdate: Wed, 30 May 2007 Source: Daily Observer, The (CN ON) Copyright: 2007, Osprey Media Group Inc. Contact: http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2615 Author: Tina Peplinskie, Staff Writer Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada) OFFICER DEFENDS HIMSELF An Ontario Provincial Police constable named in a million-dollar lawsuit believes he used a reasonable amount of force when arresting Rick Reimer March 27, 2002. Constable Tim Broder, a member of the Killaloe OPP detachment, testified in his own defence Tuesday during the second day of the civil trial at Pembroke's Superior Court. Mr. Reimer is suing Const. Broder, Killaloe OPP Sgt. Dwayne Sears and the province's Crown, claiming wrongful arrest and the use of excessive force in two arrests March 27, 2002 in the parking lot of the Killaloe court. While waiting to go into court to answer an impaired driving charge, Mr. Reimer, who has a medical exemption that allows him to smoke marijuana to treat his Multiple Sclerosis, lit a joint and began smoking it in the parking lot. Const. Broder, who was at the court on another matter on March 27, 2002, arrested Mr. Reimer twice that day, the first just after 9 a.m. and the second time around 10 a.m. He was in custody for 26 minutes after the first arrest, according to the officer's notes from that day, and in custody for 37 minutes after the second arrest. When asked why it took longer, he explained it was because he had to go to the detachment to make a copy of the valid exemption which he found in Mr. Reimer's notebook that was seized during the second arrest. While at the detachment, he also spoke with Sgt. Sears and Staff Sgt. Jim Graham about what had occurred with Mr. Reimer. The officer believed he had grounds to make the arrests as he saw Mr. Reimer smoking marijuana and, when asked to provide a copy of a valid medical exemption, he refused to do so. He testified this led him to believe Mr. Reimer did not have an exemption and he was subject to the law like anyone else. "He confirmed he had marijuana and the refusal to provide the documentation for the exemption led me to believe he was in possession of a controlled substance, and because I found him committing a criminal offence is the reason I made the arrest," the constable explained. Const. Broder went on to say he made the request for the exemption letter because it was his belief that anyone with an exemption must show it upon request from a police officer. He made another notation in his notebook that day because he felt it was an odd and useful statement that spoke to Mr. Reimer's state of mind at the time of the arrest. The officer read from his notebook that Mr. Reimer apologized for using him as a pawn, but the government's system to deal with exemptions was inadequate. Two days earlier, Mr. Reimer had attended at the Killaloe detachment and provided an expired exemption letter, which prompted Sgt. Sears to write an e-mail to all members of the detachment notifying them Mr. Reimer was without a valid exemption. Const. Broder had an opportunity to watch the video of the incident that was entered as an exhibit Monday. He believed it accurately portrayed the events and he maintained he didn't act too forcefully with Mr. Reimer or lose his patience as Mr. Reimer's lawyer Bob Howe suggested. The video shows Mr. Reimer grabbing the door frame as he was being escorted inside the building by Const. Broder and Const. Brandon Wilson. The officer admitted this "active resistance" surprised him, as Mr. Reimer had been co-operative up to that point. Mr. Howe pointed out his client resisted because the officers did not allow him to put out his lit joint before entering the building. Const. Broder recalled handcuffing Mr. Reimer behind his back once inside the building. He noted it is his practice to handcuff a suspect during a search. He didn't recall Mr. Reimer complaining the cuffs were too tight, nor did he recall him making allegations about police brutality. Const. Broder is certified to instruct other officers and provide lectures on the use of reasonable force when dealing with prisoners in custody. During his closing statement, Mr. Howe told the court he believed the police officers involved in the case had an obligation to go further to investigate the status of Mr. Reimer's exemption. He maintains his client had a valid exemption at the time of the incident because there was a transition period between two sets of regulations. He also argued that Mr. Reimer was not obligated to provide his exemption upon request, but the sitting judge, Mr. Justice C. McKinnon of Ottawa, pointed out the last line of the document advises the holder of the exemption should carry it when he or she is in physical possession of the controlled substance to show he or she has received an exemption. He called this statement "so utterly obvious." "To suggest this letter need not be produced on demand is simply incomprehensible to me, quite frankly," the judge added. Mr. Howe submitted it was irresponsible of Sgt. Sears to prepare the e-mail about the status of Mr. Reimer's exemption, as he relied on information from another officer and did not follow up himself. "Sgt. Sears is responsible for the wrongful arrest of Mr. Reimer by writing the e-mail and using second-hand information," he added. "Sgt. Sears relies on Const. Burton, Const. Broder relies on Sgt. Sears and nobody calls Health Canada to get the information. Ultimately the buck stops with Const. Broder." Mr. Howe will finish his closing statement this morning and James Smith for the defendants will make his closing remarks as well before the judge deliberates on his decision. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom