JUDGES MUST THINK POLICE WORK IN A FANTASY WORLD

If you're watering your marijuana plants in the basement, or filing
the serial numbers off something you've stolen, or building a bomb, a
knock on the door can be a bit of a bother.

It could be just a kindly neighbour with a plate of cookies, but it
could also be the cops.

Not to worry. They have to announce themselves and wait until you
open the door. And after, say, five or 10 minutes, if all they hear
are sounds of flushing and things being smashed and all they see is
smoke coming from the chimney, they might knock the door down and
swarm in, guns at the ready.

That shouldn't present a problem though. Even if they find enough
weed to incapacitate an entire ferry crew, or discover your stolen
whatever-it-is or bits of your bomb, you should be OK because
eventually some judge is going to say those cops used excessive
force, didn't wait long enough before barging in and thereby violated
your charter rights.

The idea that police following what they believe to be the spoor of
criminals who may well be armed and dangerous should knock and cool
their heels just like that neighbour with the cookies is absurd.

The idea that illegal substances, stolen items or dangerous devices
they find are not to be used against you in court because they found
them while violating the sanctity of your unlawful operation is ridiculous.

Yet judges are encouraged by the charter to ensure that the
constitutional rights of suspected criminals, just like the rights of
anyone else, are respected by police who are expected to do their
best to deter wrongdoing and catch those who are doing it.

The charter provides that these rights can be subject only to
limitations that may be justified in a free and democratic society.
There are a lot of officers out there who must be wondering why a
free and democratic society can't also be law-abiding.

The latest in a string of court judgments that they say ties one of
their hands behind their backs was issued by B.C. Supreme Court
Justice Catherine Bruce this week. She found that a Mountie drug
squad created "an extremely dangerous situation" by forcing its way
into a Surrey house with guns drawn and didn't wait long enough
before entering and arresting a suspect.

Consequently, she declared the 700 marijuana plants the cops found in
the basement couldn't be admitted as evidence to support drug
charges, so the charges had to be dropped.

Solicitor General John Les is right to be "disappointed." The
Mounties have every justification to be "disconcerted."

Bruce said the danger was created by the gun-toting police forcing
entry "without regard to the particular circumstances before them."
She scolded the Surrey Mounties for following what "appears to be
standard practice."

I don't know what particular circumstances would have persuaded the
cops to wait, with weapons left in their vehicles or holsters, until
the pot-grower opened the door. They probably had no idea what kind
of reception they'd receive. As Les suggested, how did they know the
suspect wasn't loading a weapon?

It shouldn't be only Mounties who realize that there's an unknown
risk in any drug investigation. The fatal ambush of four of their
kind near Mayerthorpe in Alberta during just such an exercise almost
three years ago was the deadly result of a "particular circumstance"
that the judge might have recalled.

I don't know what standard practice Bruce would approve of in these
situations, but it seems to me that judges have no business drawing
up etiquette manuals for police as if their business is to make social calls.

No wonder officers are frustrated these days. It must be awfully
tempting to take these frustrations out on the kinds of characters
they have to deal with.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that police, knowing that a kindly
judge is going to let loose someone whom they're convinced is guilty,
take advantage of the opportunity to knock the suspect around a bit
while he, or she, is still in custody.

TV shows that give this impression are fiction. What police
surveillance cameras have shown us recently can't give us the
particular circumstance that account for the way a few cops behave.

Sometimes deciding what circumstances are particular is more
difficult than it seems -- even for judges.