GROUNDS FOR POLICE WARRANT CALLED INTO QUESTION AT TRIAL

SUSSEX - The grounds for a police raid of Arden Gregg's Marrtown property
last year, which led to drug and weapons charges, has been called into
question.

In Sussex Provincial Court June 4, Judge Henrik Tonning announced his
ruling that the ITO (information to obtain) filed by police didn't support
the warrant authorized by Judge Andrew LeMesurier for the May 20, 2008
search.

The ruling does not constitute a decision on the admissibility of the
evidence but merely on the grounds for the search warrant.

Tonning accepted defence lawyer Randy Maillet's position that the search
of Gregg's property last year may constitute a breach of Section 8 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Following the police raid last
year, Gregg was charged with drug trafficking, possession of marijuana and
cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, unsafe storage of firearms,
possession of 49 weapons without proper licences and possession of
unlicenced tobacco.

Prior to announcing his decision, Tonning said he'd been waiting a couple
of weeks for the defence brief on the Gregg case. In an earlier voir dire
on the Charter issue, the defence had made oral submissions with
supporting jurisprudence, but the judge only received the written brief by
fax June 3, on the eve of his decision.

In the meantime, Tonning explained, a relevant decision by another New
Brunswick judge occurred which became an important factor in his decision.
He was referring to the May 28 decision by Justice Marc Richard in the
matter of Her Majesty the Queen v. Joseph Arsenault, which set a precedent
about search warrants based on tips from police informants.

In the Gregg case, police requested the warrant on the basis of evidence
from four informants, one who had been working with police for decades and
others who'd only been tipsters for a few months.

The evidence was vetted prior to going before the court to protect the
identity of the informants.

Tonning explained he considered the extent of the evidence based on
sources outside the police, the credibility and reliability of the sources
and the extent to which police were able to substantiate the tips.

He pointed out examples of how the informants' evidence, as presented to
him, was "extremely vague" and failed to provide specific dates and
incidents which could later be corroborated. The judge said police didn't
seem to try to corroborate the evidence received, other than doing a
computer check of Gregg's licence to get his address.

"There was absolutely no surveillance of any kind, no checking of any
detail. Not even a drive-by," he said. There was no corroborating evidence
the accused had ever been seen in the Golden Arrow Sports Bar where he
allegedly sold drugs or that police had even done a walk-through there.

"There are the kinds of things we expect to see," he said.

He referred to other investigations where police would back up tips with
surveillance, garbage searches and checks on electricity usage to provide
an "air of reality" to the tips before proceeding with a warrant.

"There's a lot of innuendo and rumour," Tonning said, but no satisfactory
grounds for the search.

"I can only come to the conclusion there are rumours that Mr. Gregg was a
bad guy, deals drugs and has some in his house."

Under Section 24.2 of the Charter, which addresses practices surrounding
evidence brought against individuals in trials, evidence obtained in a way
that infringes on Charter rights can be excluded.

When a court concludes evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed on
Charter rights, the defence can argue to have the evidence deemed
inadmissible if it establishes admission of the evidence would bring the
administration of justice into question. The Crown, on the other hand, can
apply to have the evidence deemed admissible and proceed with the charges.

The Gregg matter proceeds to a hearing July 10 at 10 a.m. in Sussex court.