JAIL FOR THIS?

One Couple Spend 36 Hours In The Slammer And Have To Post $2,000 Bail -- And
For What? Three Hits Of E.

A lot of lip service has lately been paid to Toronto police working with
young people. But judging by the story of two young ravers busted for
selling ecstasy to an undercover officer at the Better Living Centre
all-nighter last month, police might be more appropriately pegged as working
young people over.

As NOW reported last week, the promoters paid not only for the usual gang of
uniformed pay-duty officers, but also for 10 undercover cops to work the
rave, resulting in 19 arrests, some for simple ecstasy and pot-possession.

Police initially withheld the names of those charged on the grounds that it
would hamper future investigations. But late last week, after NOW complained
that the police usually have no problem releasing the names of alleged
drug-law offenders and that we would get them through the courts anyway, the
PR flacks relented and gave us nine names.

THEIR SIDE

Two agreed to tell their side of the story on the condition that their names
not be used.

Let's call them Jack and Jill.

Jill was charged with trafficking ecstasy and having the proceeds from
trafficking. Jack was charged with trafficking ecstasy, possession with the
purpose of trafficking and having the proceeds from trafficking.

So how much ecstasy were these alleged outlaws peddling?

Three pills.

They claim to have sold one ecstasy pill to an undercover officer for $20,
the price they paid for it. And they were apparently carrying two more pills
between them.

Jack had a whopping $30 cash on him.

He claims that the undercover officer initially approached him looking for
drugs inside the rave sometime around 5:30 am.

"The guy came up to me and asked if I had any Es," he says. "I honestly knew
some people who did. But they ended up not having them at the time."

The officer allegedly persisted. Jack told him he knew Jill had some in her
bag that they were holding for friends. He says he told the officer they
were for personal use. But the officer wouldn't let up.

"We gave him one," says Jack. "He kept on asking for two, and I said, 'No,
these are personal, I'm sorry.'"

As soon as the officer handed them the $20, they were arrested.

"I didn't even see them," says Jack. "Next thing I know, my arms are way up
in the air and I've got handcuffs on."

Jack and Jill say they were separated, taken to holding rooms on-site and
strip-searched.

They were then shipped to holding cells at a police station. In total, they
each spent about 36 hours in custody before they were finally released on
bail early Monday evening.

CROWN GUST

Bail was set at $2,000 each, but only after the crown attorney allegedly
tore into them.

"She had a problem with everything," Jack says. "She was going for the
gusto. She wanted all of us in jail. She didn't want any of us out."

The conditions of their bail require them to follow a curfew and refrain
from seeing each other, among other things.

As well, Jill was required to call her parents.

"I'm 22 years old and they made me call my parents," she says.

Jill maintains that up until now she's "never been charged with anything in
my life."

"I was scared because I didn't know what was going on, and I've never been
through it before," she says.

Jack, who's 23, says his record is also clean. He says he been going to
raves for years but has recently become disillusioned with the whole scene.

"I've actually stopped going lately because I found it's getting too
commercialized," says Jack. "And then to have this happen -- I'm never going
to go again."

While Jack has retained a lawyer, Jill is still seeking legal counsel. It
could be months before they get to trial.

Police spokesperson Lorna Kosmik would not comment on the specific arrests.

"I'm not going to get into evidence with you," she says.

Defence lawyers and law professors NOW contacted about the pay-duty
undercover scheme, however, raise serious ethical questions about it.

Prominent civil rights lawyer Clay Ruby says he's never heard of the
arrangement, and wonders why private individuals would be required to pay
for what should be an ordinary police duty.

"It's got constitutional dimensions, because the essence of a police force
is that they are public," he says. "And while you can hire them for private
security, they then become private security guards.

"But when you're hiring them to go undercover and make arrests, that's a
pure police function, and the state shouldn't be hireable."

Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Young, who is opposed to arresting people
for drug use, says when commercial interests and law enforcement get mixed
it opens the door to possible conflicts of interest.

"That always raises the possibility of abuse, where the net would be widened
in that the police would effect more arrests and way more charges than they
normally would ," says Young. "You never have the administration of justice
contingent on commercial payment. It's taboo."