Pubdate: Fri, 04 Nov 2011
Source: Nanaimo Daily News (CN BC)
Copyright: 2011 Nanaimo Daily News
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1608
Author: Keith Fraser
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)

JUDGE QUASHES DRUG CASE OVER RCMP RIGHTS VIOLATION

Warrant Itself Was Valid, but Ruling Found Cops Made an Improper 
Entry into Home

VANCOUVER -- The case against a man charged after 500 marijuana 
plants were found in a B.C. home has been dismissed after a judge 
ruled that RCMP violated the accused's rights.

In May 2009, Van Dang Truong was charged with production of marijuana 
and possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking. RCMP 
executed a search warrant on a two-storey house with an attached 
garage in Gibsons, B.C., and found more than 500 marijuana plants 
along with fans, lights and other equipment common to grow-ops.

Truong was arrested near a bathroom on the upper floor of the home. 
At trial, the accused made a number of charter challenges, including 
that his right to be secure from reasonable search and seizure had 
been breached and that the warrant was invalid.

The trial judge, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Nathan Smith, found that 
while the warrant was valid, the RCMP had made an improper entry into the home.

In the absence of urgent circumstances, police are required to knock 
first, announce their presence and allow a reasonable time for any 
occupants to respond. Police in the Truong case knocked on the door 
but waited at most only 45 seconds before using a battering ram to 
bust into the home.

Just before using the battering ram, an officer reported that she'd 
seen the blinds move in the window next to the door.

But the officer made no mention of the blinds moving in her notes of 
the incident, an omission the judge found troubling.

Following his arrest, Truong was also denied his right to speak to a 
lawyer of his choice.

When asked by the officers whether he had a lawyer, the accused had 
given police a name, but the officers ignored that request, a 
"significant" breach of his rights, said the judge.

"In this case, I have found the police took what can best be called a 
casual approach to the accused's rights under the charter, doing the 
minimum necessary to honour them in form while effectively ignoring 
them in substance."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom