FETTER THE POLICE

The court is considering a specific case from Ontario involving a
cocaine bust that was, in the words of Ontario Superior Court Justice
Norman Karam, "brazen and flagrant" in the police abuse of privacy
rights. An Ontario provincial police constable had stopped an SUV only
because it was driving at precisely the speed limit, and then
arbitrarily searched the vehicle and found cocaine valued at as much
as $4.6 million. Everyone involved in the case and the ultimate
conviction of the SUV's driver, Bradley Harrison, agrees that the
evidence was tainted by the police officer's unjustified action. The
issue before the Supreme Court now is whether the magnitude of the
crime can justify the brazen and flagrant violation of Mr. Harrison's
rights.

In American courts, where individual rights actually stand for
something under the constitution, this case would be a no-brainer --
the evidence would be tossed and the lower-court conviction
overturned. In Canada the situation is not so clear.

The Canadian Charter of Rights, like the American constitution,
protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, but in this
country that right, enshrined as it may seem to be, is subject to
liberal interpretation by the courts.

And the courts, including the Supreme Court, have interpreted it
liberally in favour of brazen and flagrant police abuse of that right
in defence of the greater public good -- if the crime uncovered by the
evidence illegally discovered by police is of sufficient magnitude,
that evidence is often admitted because excluding it would bring the
administration of justice into disrepute.

This troubles even lower court judges who routinely admit tainted
evidence in criminal trials, and it troubles the Supreme Court
justices today as they look at the case of R. vs. Harrison. Chief
Justice Beverley McLachlin suggested on Tuesday that it is a question
of finding a balance between the seriousness of the crime and the
rights of the individual.

But that's not really the question that the justices should be asking
themselves. They should instead be asking under what possible
circumstances the police can be justified in running roughshod over
the rights of Canadian citizens because they may be driving precisely
at the speed limit, or because they may appear nervous when being
questioned by cops, even if they have cocaine in their trunks or
malice on their minds. Prosecutors appearing before the Supreme Court
in this case argue that the police need that licence to protect the
public and prevent the law from being brought into disrepute.
Canadians should insist that any law that does not protect their
individual rights can not properly protect the public, and that
unfettered police power sanctioned by the courts can only bring all
law into public contempt.