Pubdate: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 Source: Chronicle Herald (CN NS) Copyright: 2011 The Halifax Herald Limited Contact: http://thechronicleherald.ca/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/180 Author: Michael Gorman, Truro Bureau MAN FACES NO CHARGES BUT JUDGE SAYS PROVINCE CAN HOLD ONTO HIS CASH New Civil Forfeiture Law Costs C.B. Drywaller SYDNEY -- A judge ruled Monday that the province can hold a Sydney Mines man's assets under new civil forfeiture legislation, even though he isn't facing any criminal charges. This is the first time the province has applied the new Civil Forfeiture Act in court. It came into effect in April. John Joseph Reynolds, 36, represented himself Monday in Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Sydney. In February, a police search of Reynolds's home turned up nine grams of marijuana and five grams of hash packaged individually in small plastic baggies. Police also found two digital scales, several hundred empty small baggies, a bag of dextrose, scissors and a spoon with possible cocaine traces, six cellphones with photos of drugs and text messages about buying drugs, and $5,725 in cash. The items were found in various rooms. The province wanted the money, which was being held by Cape Breton Regional Police, transferred to its coffers until a judge can make a final ruling on whether it is connected to proceeds of crime. Reynolds was charged with two counts of drug possession, although he learned Monday those charges would be dropped. In court, Reynolds told Justice Cindy Bourgeois that the drugs weren't his but that he claimed them to protect someone else. Reynolds also argued that the money was honestly earned. He said he works full time as a drywaller and for two months during the year on a crab boat. "It's not from drug money," Reynolds told the court. He produced two receipts from January and October 2010 to show the money was earned legally. A lawyer from the province argued that there is sufficient evidence to transfer the money at this time. The court agreed, granting the request. Bourgeois pointed out that the legislation says unless it isn't in the interest of justice, "the court shall make a preservation order applied for under (the legislation)." Bourgeois said there was a reasonable belief, based on definitions in the act and the items found in Reynolds's home, that the cash could be the proceeds of crime. "(The evidence) strongly supports the cash is the product of the sale of illegal substances. The very same evidence strongly supports a reasonable belief that the $5,725 would have been utilized to purchase further illegal substances as part of what appears to be an ongoing professional enterprise." Reynolds's attempt to show the money was honestly earned was insufficient "to displace the reasonable grounds established by the other evidence," said Bourgeois. "I've heard nothing today that would establish that the interim forfeiture in this instance would not be in the interest of justice." Reynolds may have a valid defence, she said, but that will have to be proved at a later date. Outside the courtroom, Reynolds said he disagrees with the new legislation. He doesn't think his money should be seized, especially when he isn't facing any charges. There is no drug dealing going on at this house and the cellphones that were found belong to someone else, he said. "I don't think it's right. When I went to jail, I had money in my pocket and they give me that back. Why didn't they give me my money back that was in my house?" Reynolds said he would likely speak to a lawyer before his next court date. Dan Harrison, a communications adviser with the Justice Department, said he couldn't comment on a case in progress, but he called the first application of the act "a watershed day" for the department. "It is a tool we intend to use as much as possible to help Nova Scotians feel safer and be safer." Harrison said there is nothing special about this case, but that Cape Breton Regional Police referred it to the department as a possible candidate under the legislation. He disputed that the legislation is in any way infringing on people's rights. Because it is civil legislation, Harrison said people are required to prove their case the same way the province must prove its own. "There's no reverse onus or anything like that." - --- MAP posted-by: Richard R Smith Jr.