FIRE CHIEF TURNS POT HOUND

B.C. Bud growers may be operating in your neighbourhood, right under
your nose.

For too long rogue citizens have been surreptitiously slithering in
and out of their clandestine operations, rarely detected by police.
Then one man did some unconventional thinking and solved the problem
of detection and inspection of suspect premises. Meet pathfinder Len
Garis, fire chief for the City of Surrey.

In 2000, Surrey was experiencing a dramatic increase in fires related
to grow-ops caused by hazardous illicit use of electricity. Convinced
that grow-ops pose an unacceptable risk of injury to firefighters, and
threaten the safety of neighbouring premises, Garis also perceived
that the criminal justice system could not cope with the safety
issues. Using common sense and an innate fireman's approach to public
safety, Garis believed that municipalities could use existing
inspection and disconnection procedures in the provincial Safety
Standards Act.

With backing from the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia,
Garis enlisted the support of various experts to determine if this
administrative or non-criminal law approach to deal with grow-ops
would be a viable alternative to the elephantine criminal justice system.

During 2004, the Fire Chiefs Association submitted a report to the
provincial government titled, On an Urgent Matter of Public Safety. It
stated, in part, that existing approaches to grow operations were not
"effective or acceptable in terms of reducing fire related occurrences
nor is it respectful of the risk to the health and safety of the
public and firefighters due to electrocution."

In 2005, the provincial solicitor general issued a press release
announcing that a case study would be conducted in Surrey; a pilot
project under the Safety Standards Act intended to reduce the
incidence of house fires and other public safety hazards caused by
grow-ops.

Between March 15 and June 3, 2005, a Surrey inspection team examined
126 residences, found cause to terminate power at 78 of them, and
issued repair notices at 11 others.

The pilot project established that the risk of fire in a grow-op
residence was 24 times greater than in a normal residence; that the
source of fires was overloading of electrical circuits, poor wiring,
and electrical bypasses.

In the fall of 2006, the provincial government amended the Safety
Standard Act to authorize B.C. Hydro to report unusual consumption of
electricity to local authorities.

Thereafter, B.C. Hydro forwarded to Surrey the residential consumption
records of approximately 6,000 homes. About 1,000 were singled out for
inspection by a team composed of a safety officer, a fire official, a
team co-ordinator, and two RCMP officers.

More recently the inspection team became embroiled in litigation over
an attempt in May 2007 to inspect and disconnect electrical service at
the Surrey home of Jason Arkinstall and Jennifer Green. Entry was
denied and, on Surrey's request, electric supply was
disconnected.

The homeowners immediately instituted proceedings under the Judicial
Review Procedure Act seeking a number of remedies, three of which are
particularly pertinent to Surrey's bold approach in dealing with
grow-ops. They asked that certain sections of the Safety Standard Act,
as amended, be declared constitutionally invalid; and for a ruling
that the Surrey inspection team had no lawful or reasonable grounds to
search their premises; and they particularly challenged police
presence in the inspection process because the officers didn't have a
search warrant.

In an extensive judgment issued October 24, 2008, Mr. Justice William
Smart ruled that the Safety Standard Act of British Columbia is
constitutionally valid provincial legislation; that it's dominant
purpose was facilitating identification and inspection of grow
operations in the interest of public safety.

Smart also ruled that inspections authorized under the Safety Standard
Act are driven by safety objectives, not criminal law objectives; that
because there is a requirement for reasonable grounds and notice to
the occupant, the Safety Standard Act strikes a rational balance
between administrative efficiency and individual privacy that is
reasonable under the Charter of Rights.

Smart made it clear that a different standard applied to police
officers taking part in any proposed inspection: That unless in hand
of a warrant to search, police officers cannot enter premises before
or with an inspection team even if their ostensible purpose is
ensuring team safety.