TOP COURT CLARIFIES SEARCH LAW

Four Rulings

The Supreme Court of Canada, ruling yesterday in a quartet of separate
but thematically related cases, acquitted a man of drug-trafficking
charges though he was caught with 35 kilograms of cocaine, but upheld
a conviction against a man for carrying a concealed, loaded revolver.

In all four cases, defence lawyers had argued that police obtained key
evidence illegally, in violation of protections spelled out in the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court's rulings more precisely define the balancing act a judge is
often called on to make between an accused person's constitutional
right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure against
society's need that justice be served.

In the judgments, the Court seemed to suggest that judges in the
future pay close attention to the conduct of police, condoning a
charter violation by police that was "neither deliberate nor
egregious" in the firearms case but throwing out the conviction of the
drug trafficker after agreeing with a lower court finding that the
arresting officer in the case displayed "brazen and flagrant"
disregard for the accused person's charter rights.

"These are protections that law-abiding Canadians take for granted and
courts must play a role in safeguarding them, even when the
beneficiaries are involved in unlawful activity," Chief Justice
Beverley McLachlin wrote in the judgment that acquitted the drug trafficker.

The rulings had been widely anticipated in the legal community. A
judge who lets the drug trafficker go free "on a technicality" related
to a charter rights violation can get criticized for being "soft on
crime." But judges who let police get away with breaking the law when
they investigate crimes raises the ire of those trying to protect the
civil liberties of all Canadians.

"Our worst fear was that the court might respond to fear-mongering
that has been aimed at judges who apply the charter in real cases. It
didn't," said Frank Addario, a Toronto defence lawyer speaking on
behalf of the Criminal Lawyers Association. "While it rewrote the test
for excluding evidence, it gave some hope to those who expect the
courts to be the guardian of Canadians' constitutional rights."