Pubdate: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 Source: Recorder & Times, The (CN ON) Copyright: 2010 Recorder and Times Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/kR0Q3nSw Website: http://www.recorder.ca/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2216 Author: Jack Walker DEFENCE: COP MADE ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT OPP Const. Maurice Morrissette may have been guilty of errors of judgement, but his conduct didn't represent a serious or marked departure to constitute a criminal breach of trust, a Superior Court judge heard Monday. "I have no doubt some of the things he's done constitute regulatory or Police Act problems," James Forrd, Morrissette's lawyer said in his closing argument. "But, you can't add up a bunch of things that are less than stellar and raise great suspicions and then conclude he breached his trust." Mistakes and errors of judgment do not comprise criminal culpability, he added. Morrissette, 40, has pleaded not guilty to charges of bribery, breach of trust, obstructing justice and trafficking in marijuana. The charges were laid following a joint 2005 OPP-RCMP investigation into the illegal drug and cigarette trade in the Prescott area. Morrissette and retired Prescott police officer Bruce Perrin were the original targets of the investigation, but it expanded to include several other local street dealers who were subsequently charged and sentenced. Forrd noted the undercover probe turned up no evidence Morrissette was involved in selling contraband cigarettes or trafficking in cocaine, so the question for investigators became "what's left and what gets caught in the net? That's what we have here." The defence lawyer said the Crown's case against his client was largely circumstantial and fell far short of proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court had only "a partial picture" of what had happened, in part because the prosecution didn't call certain witnesses who could "solidify and confirm exactly what was going on," he said. Forrd then went through the five main counts against Morrissette, pointing out what he saw as holes in the Crown's case. On the trafficking in marijuana charge, Forrd said there was no evidence the constable gave drugs to anyone. When stopped by Ottawa police in September 2006, the drugs were found in the possession of Morrissette's wife, not the accused, he said. On the bribery count that Morrissette provided drug dealer Mehrdad Kazerkermani with information in exchange for drugs, Forrd said there was no "quid pro quo." Even if Kazerkermani supplied the cop with drugs, there was no evidence Morrissette provided information in exchange for them. Forrd conceded Morrissette drove Kazerkermani to a wake in Ottawa in violation of the convicted drug dealer's conditional sentence. However, he said the Crown must prove Morrissette did it wilfully intending to obstruct the course of justice. He noted there was no criminal proceeding taking place at the time. Further, he said Morrissette told investigators in a statement following his arrest that he didn't believe he had done anything wrong and that if he had, he wouldn't have driven Kazerkermani. Forrd added his client was not on duty at the time and that he left the funeral home with Kazerkermani as soon as learning there was some confusion over whether he was entitled to be there. On the second obstruct charge, he said there was no direct evidence he warned the Kazerkermani's of an impending drug raid on their home near Prescott. While telephone calls were exchanged, both Morrissette and Tania Kazerkermani denied giving or receiving any advance notice of the search warrant. While the Crown alleged several incidents where Morrissette breached his trust, Forrd said the essence of the charge is that he had to use the office for a purpose contrary to the public good and no hard evidence existed. "There is a lot of suspicion about what was going on and what was being said, but the key issue is how much the Crown has proved he used his office," he said. "I suggest not much." Forrd noted while Morrissette may have purchased marijuana, he never made buys while on duty and that he never used his position as an police officer to make drug deals. In a brief reply, prosecutor Marc Marcotte reiterated the Crown's position that Morrissette repeatedly breached his sworn duty as a cop by associating with known criminals and providing them with information both while on and off duty. "In my view, these are not minor errors in judgment and they do constitute a marked departure of the conduct we expect out of a police officer," he said. "At worst, Mr. Morrissette knew what he was doing. At best, he was wilfully blind or reckless ... and if we do not keep police officers responsible for such actions, the community at large will lose respect for the institutions." Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger will give his decision August 24. - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart