REGGAE MUSICIAN'S CHARTER RIGHTS BREACHED

Police Had No Lawful Basis For Stopping Car

Court Of Appeal Restores Trial Ruling

Fitzroy Hanson remembers being confronted with an unusual question
after an undercover police officer in an unmarked car stopped him
unexpectedly in Scarborough. According to Hanson, the first thing the
officer asked him was how he could afford to drive such an expensive vehicle.

The Toronto reggae musician had been at a recording studio that night
and left for home around 10:30 p.m. He was driving his mother's new 2003 SUV.

The officer later testified he suspected Hanson was impaired because
he had been driving slowly and weaving within his own lane. But
Hanson, who had not been drinking, argued he had been the subject of
racial profiling, a legal battle that took him all the way to the
Ontario Court of Appeal.

In a 3-0 ruling yesterday, an appeal court panel restored a trial
judge's decision to dismiss the case against Hanson after finding
police had no lawful basis for pulling him over on Jan. 27, 2003.

"There was competing evidence as to whether (the officer) knew he was
black before he pulled him over," said Leslie Maunder, a Toronto
lawyer who represented Hanson at his appeal.

The officer, Const. Brett Spriggs of 42 Division's community response
unit, vehemently denied it.

Hanson testified that as he drove along Morningside Ave. near
Kingston Rd., the unmarked car pulled out from a gas station and
began following him. At one point, the driver pulled up beside the
SUV and stared at him, he said.

After he was stopped, Hanson, then 33, was charged with violating
bail conditions that included a 10 p.m. curfew. Later, at 42
Division, Hanson was also charged with drug possession after police
found a three-gram cube of hashish inside his jacket pocket.

The evidence was excluded after the trial judge, Justice John Kerr,
found police breached Hanson's Charter rights by arbitrarily detaining him.

Kerr said he didn't want to characterize the case as one of "blatant
racial profiling," but went on to call some of the evidence
"troubling," particularly the officer's assertion that Hanson had
been weaving his vehicle -- something difficult for a "cold sober"
person to do, the judge said.

The court was told that Hanson hadn't consumed any drugs.

Kerr said he ascribed no malice to Spriggs, who, along with his
partner, was on "the look out for people who might be up to no good."
Describing him as "a fine officer," the judge said Spriggs might well
be praised by members of the public for being diligent.

But Kerr also concluded, "somewhat reluctantly" that Spriggs,
"perhaps subconsciously" became "a little overzealous" and stopped
Hanson not because he suspected an impaired driver, but because he
suspected he might have been up to some other form of criminal activity.

The Crown appealed Hanson's acquittal, arguing that Kerr offered an
inadequate explanation for concluding Hanson's Charter rights had
been breached. A Superior Court judge agreed, quashing the acquittals
and ordering a new trial.

Hanson appealed that decision, and his position found favour with
Justices Marc Rosenberg, James MacPherson and Eilleen Gillese, who
said that while Kerr used "somewhat circumspect" language in
acquitting Hanson, his explanation for doing so was quite acceptable.
The judge found there was no lawful basis for stopping Hanson and
that alone was reason enough for finding that his Charter rights had
been breached, the panel said.