DRUG TRAFFICKING CASE ENDS ABRUPTLY

Crown refuses judge's order to disclose files

A federal prosecutor has folded the case against an alleged drug trafficker
rather than follow a judge's order and disclose complaint files involving a
Toronto police drug squad.

In a surprise development yesterday, federal Crown Attorney Sandy Thomas
told Mr. Justice Keith Hoilett, of the Superior Court of Justice, that she
would not call any evidence in the case against Silvio Scaduto, effectively
giving the judge no choice but to acquit the Toronto man.

The decision stunned Clayton Ruby, the defence lawyer on the case, who
suggested the police force and crown ended the case to sidestep rulings that
would have forced them to disclose information about alleged misconduct by
the drug squad prior to the arrest of his client on Jan. 7, 1998.

``It may be that they are so afraid of the contents of those files that they
would prefer outright acquittals to disseminating that information to the
defence,'' said Ruby, who was seeking information contained in nine
complaint files involving the officers.

Thomas, the crown attorney, could not be reached for comment yesterday.

But she told Hoilett earlier this week that she only turned over information
connected to one of nine previous complaints against the drug squad officers
because the others were irrelevant and, as well, disclosing them might
breach privacy laws.

Hoilett ruled that the documents be released - something another judge, who
heard an application for disclosure, had already ordered.

Deputy Chief Mike Boyd, who is in charge of central command and the drug
squad officers, would not comment on the court case yesterday.

He did say that six members of the same drug squad were recently reassigned,
on a temporary basis, to other duties. Boyd said the moves were not related
to this case.

Ruby's client Scaduto was arrested Jan. 7, 1998, after a police surveillance
team allegedly saw a drug deal take place.

Court heard that the drug squad made two unsuccessful attempts to get search
warrants for Scaduto's home. A third try proved successful, but court was
told that, by that time, police had already entered the home.

The resulting charges - trafficking in cocaine, dangerous driving, assault
with intent to resist arrest, possession of unregistered restricted weapons,
careless storage of a firearm and ammunition - could have meant serious time
in prison had Scaduto been convicted.

Scaduto was acquitted on all the charges he faced in the 1998 arrest, but
faces unrelated charges in another drug case.

Ruby's argument for disclosure of police complaints files began with a Star
article published last year that detailed a police complaint investigation
into an October, 1997, case involving five of the seven officers involved in
the Scaduto case.

That complaint, in which a police investigator found that the officers had
conducted ``intrusive'' strip searches of two men and illegal searches of
several homes connected to them in October, 1997, was dismissed by the force
on a technicality.

A police adjudicator ruled the discipline case had taken too long to get to
the hearing stage.

As a result, none of the evidence surrounding the allegations was heard,
including investigator Detective William Nelson's report that found ``the
very essence of fundamental justice was denied'' to the two men.

The adjudicator's decision was appealed and is currently under review by the
province's civilian commission on policing services, the main police
watchdog agency.

Last month, in the midst of Scaduto's trial, Ruby made an application to
another judge for an order requiring the crown to obtain and disclose all
prior allegations of misconduct against the officers involved in his
client's arrest.

On the other side of the courtroom, lawyers from the federal justice
department, the Toronto police force and a lawyer representing the seven
officers opposed the motion. They argued the complaint records in question
contained private information about people not involved in the case and
should not be disclosed.

Mr. Justice Michael Dambrot agreed with Ruby, and in a sternly worded
decision, ordered the Toronto force to disclose all prior complaint
investigation records involving the seven officers in Scaduto's case.

Dambrot questioned how the crown could say it had met its disclosure
requirements because the Toronto police force had refused to release
documents that may have been relevant.

``The attorney-general has asked for the records. The police department has
refused to turn them over,'' he said in his ruling.

Dambrot also chastised the force for contending that its obligation for
disclosure was ignored in this case because the complaint files were not
related to the police role of investigating and prosecuting.

``This is no mere fishing expedition,'' he wrote. ``It is a matter of public
record that allegations of improper warrantless searching exist against some
of the crown witnesses in this case.''

Despite the ruling, Crown Attorney Thomas decided not to disclose
information relating to eight other public complaints made against the
officers in the Scaduto case.

Thomas agreed to disclose only files relating to the complaint written about
by The Star, since it had already been made public.

It was her position that the information in the eight other files was
factually irrelevant to the Scaduto case and raised no issues relating to
unlawful searches. As well, there were no findings of misconduct.

Thumbnail sketches of the eight other complaints, many of which involve more
than one officer, show one officer, Detective John Schertzer, was named in
seven of them.

Ruby was seeking complaint disclosure on Schertzer and Detectives Gregory
Forestall, John Reid, Joseph Miched, Steve Correia, Kim Donison and Ray
Pollard.

With files from Joel Baglole