MARIJUANA SEIZED FROM MAN'S JACKET NOT ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE, JUDGE RULES

BRIDGEWATER - A Queens County man's rights were violated when police,
searching for liquor in his car, also found marijuana in his coat
pocket, a judge has ruled.

Judge Jim Burrill of provincial court said in a written decision
released recently that the search was illegal, so the marijuana that
the officer seized could not be used as evidence at Raymond
D'Entremont's trial for possession of marijuana.

With that evidence excluded, "there is no evidence that the accused
possessed marijuana at the time . . . and the accused is found not
guilty of that offence," Judge Burrill ruled.

Mr. D'Entremont was charged after two Queens County RCMP officers
stopped a black Volkswagen Passat at a checkpoint in Port Mouton on
April 18, 2008.

One officer smelled alcohol on Mr. D'Entremont's breath and gave him
a roadside screening test. The officer also saw a liquor store bag in
the back seat and told the second officer to search the car while he
dealt with Mr. D'Entremont because he felt there could be open liquor in it.

The second officer saw a liquor store bag at the feet of the female
passenger, who also smelled strongly of alcohol. He arrested her and
told her he was going to search the car. He found a box of Bacardi
Breezers at her feet and found another bag with four more Breezers
behind her seat, plus a bag on the back seat with wine in it.

Then he found a dark leather jacket, put his hand in the pocket and
found a bag of marijuana.

Judge Burrill said the officer "indicated that he was searching the
vehicle only for liquor -that in his experience he found mickeys or
cans of beer in pockets before."

The judge ruled that while police acted properly in stopping the car,
conducting the roadside screening test and searching the car for
liquor, the second officer went beyond his authority by looking in
the jacket pocket.

Defence lawyer Philip Star argued "that the jacket could easily have
been patted, as it were in the pocket area, patted to determine
whether or not there was a liquor container in that pocket."

Prosecutor Josh Bryson argued that since the officer was authorized
to search for liquor, "if he chose to put his hand in the pocket to
conduct that search, then it's authorized by law."

Judge Burrill said he believes the officer expanded the scope of the
legal search for liquor to a general search for anything illegal.

"I am persuaded that when he put his hand in the jacket pocket that
he was searching for something other than liquor at that particular
time and that the search had become, at that particular point in
time, a general search for contraband."

The judge said his decision is specific to this case.

"I don't say that to say that an officer may never reach his hand in
a jacket pocket in a vehicle to determine whether or not there is
liquor present," he said as he acquitted Mr. D'Entremont.