ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY OF COCAINE NOT ENOUGH FOR CONVICTION

Cops Only Looking for Liquor So Man Acquitted of Drug Trafficking

A young man convicted of cocaine trafficking has been acquitted on
appeal after B.C.'s highest court ruled his rights were violated
during a liquor search of a vehicle.

Mark Thomas Dreyer was in the front passenger seat and his sister was
behind the wheel when their vehicle, with its tail lights off, was
pulled over by RCMP in White Rock in September 2005.

It was later revealed that Dreyer's sister was doing a favour for him
in making drug deliveries at his direction, but, at the time, police
became interested when they spotted an open 1.2-litre bottle of beer
on the floor behind the driver's seat.

Dreyer and his sister were ordered out of the vehicle while a search
for more liquor was conducted.

An officer found a crumpled paper bag between the driver's seat and
centre console, moved the bag to look for liquor underneath it and
felt some objects inside the bag.

Opening the bag, the officer found four packages of cocaine, each
containing half a gram. A further search located a plastic Ziploc bag
containing two paper packages of cocaine, each with one-half gram of
the drug as well.

The pair were arrested and charged and on Jan. 24, 2007, in Surrey
Provincial Court, Dreyer was convicted of possession of cocaine for
the purpose of trafficking.

The judge found that Dreyer's right to be free from unreasonable
search and seizure had not been violated and, even if it had, the
evidence should not be excluded.

But a three-member panel for the B.C. Court of Appeal found the judge
had erred and overturned the conviction and ordered an acquittal.

In his reasons for judgment, B.C. Court of Appeal Justice Ian Donald
said that though Dreyer's sister was behind the wheel, the car was
under his "de facto control" and he therefore had a reasonable
expectation of privacy.

"The appellant testified that he stashed the drugs in the bag to
prevent theft from customers. Keeping the drugs out of sight is
connected with his concern for privacy."

Donald added: "In conducting a search under limited auspices for
liquor, the officer intruded on the appellant's property to find
something the officer knew could not have been liquor and could not
have threatened the safety of the police or the public."

An appeal of the ruling is unlikely since there was no dissent in the
appeal-court judgment.