POLICE EFFICIENCY ISN'T EVERYTHING

In 2004, an Ontario police officer noticed a car driving without a
front licence plate, which is a traffic offence. But when he saw an
Alberta plate on the rear of the car, he realized this was permitted
in Alberta, and so it was not even a traffic offence in Ontario. But
he had already put on his flashing lights and so, what the heck, he
still stopped the car knowing he had absolutely no legal reason to do
so.

The officer questioned the driver, Bradley Harrison, despite having no
legal right to do so, and learned that Harrison's licence had been
suspended. The officer then arrested him and searched the car. He
found 77 lbs. of cocaine.

The trial judge found the police officer's actions were a flagrant and
brazen violation of Harrison's rights under the Charter. The judge
found the stop was arbitrary, Harrison's detention unlawful and the
search not conducted in good faith. He also found that the officer had
lied under oath. But, the judge admitted the cocaine into evidence
because he determined that to do otherwise would bring the
administration of justice into greater disrepute than excluding it.
Harrison was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.

The Charter requires evidence to be excluded from trial if allowing it
in would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. I cannot
understand how the repute of the administration of justice is not
seriously tarnished by blatantly illegal police conduct. Yet two
judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal recently upheld the trial
judge's decision. The third judge, Madame Justice Cronk dissented:

"While excluding the evidence could bring the administration of
justice into disrepute, on the record in this case, the administration
of justice would be brought into greater disrepute by admitting it. To
hold otherwise on the facts and in the circumstances of this case,
would invite the disregard of Charter rights by the police, with an
unspoken "assurance of impunity."

Justice Cronk got it right.

The Charter is in place to protect us against unreasonable search and
seizure. Some people may prefer an accused go to jail regardless of
the fact that evidence was seized illegally. I believe it is dangerous
to let the police do whatever they want in the hopes of striking gold.
In other words, a search is not to be made legal by what it turns up.
In law it is good or bad when it starts and does not change character
from its success. A famous U.S. Supreme Court judge said: "[I]t is
monstrous that courts should aid or abet the law-breaking police
officer. It is abiding truth that '[n]othing can destroy a government
more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its
disregard of the charter of its own existence.'"

Justice Cronk is not alone in her judicial concern about chipping away
at Canadian's Charter rights and protections. Justice Ian Binnie of
our Supreme Court stated the following in 2007: "A society that valued
police efficiency and effectiveness above other values would be a
police state."

CHINESE STYLE

In countries such as China, the police can stop anybody, anywhere and
detain and search them for no justifiable reason whatsoever. This is
Canada.

When police officers are given free reign to stop, search, or question
anyone without any legitimate reason to do so, our Charter of Rights
and Freedoms loses all meaning. Harrison immediately appealed to the
Supreme Court of Canada, and for the sake of all of us, I hope he wins.