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