THANK YOU, MS. HORYSKI

SANDRA Horyski believed her rights were trampled when Winnipeg police
detained her and her young son in the back of a cruiser for more than
two hours in March 2003. Ms. Horyski intended to get the Winnipeg
Police Service to recognize it owed the two of them an explanation why
they were held, and a chance to call a lawyer.

A provincial court judge has agreed with the Winnipegger. Ms. Horyski
has done all citizens a service in proving that point.

Early that morning, Ms. Horyski, her son and her husband were ordered
out of their North End home by police who surrounded the house and had
their weapons raised.

Police had been told by an informant that guns were concealed in Ms.
Horyski's house and another house on Lipton Street. He was right about
the second house and wrong about Ms. Horyski's house.

During the search, the mother and son were held in one car and the
father, Walter Cerros, in another.

Mr. Cerros, named in the search warrant as a suspect, was told why he
was being held and that he could contact a lawyer.

Ms. Horyski and her nine-year-old son were not advised of the rights
under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Police argued before a Law Enforcement Review Agency hearing that they
were not technically detaining Ms. Horyski and the boy as they were
not suspects, but rather that they were being held in the cruiser for
safety reasons.

As such, they said, they didn't think they owed them the same rights
as her husband.

Provincial Judge Marva Smith described that for the hogwash it was,
noting that any person stopped and held logically would believe they
were under control of police.

Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada established that definition of
detention in law more than 20 years ago. Police have the onus to
ensure any person detained, under suspicion or not, is informed of
their Charter rights, and has a chance to contact a lawyer to advise
them. The judge found that the police had abused their authority and
that their ignorance of the obligation did not excuse the abuse.

Additionally, she said the police should have offered Ms. Horyski and
her son something to drink or eat and the use of a bathroom.

Judge Smith noted that the police seemed to think Charter rights are
protected only for those suspected of criminal activity.

This is indeed troubling. Police come into contact with people --
complainants, suspects and innocent bystanders -- throughout their
work day, whether on patrol, investigating crime or keeping order at
public events.

The search of Ms. Horyski's house was organized by veteran officers
who should know their obligations to respect individual rights, that
they cannot interfere with a person's liberty except as law provides.

Judge Smith wisely advised Chief Jack Ewatski to ensure his officers
are well aware of their duties and the limitations to their powers.