ASKING 'CAN YOU HOOK ME UP?' PART OF OFFICER'S JOB, JUDGES SAY

Drug Tracking Acquittal Quashed By Appeals Court

The phrase "Can you hook me up?" has long been understood in popular
culture to refer to a request for some kind of drug transaction.

But what it means when uttered by an undercover police officer was at
the heart of a closely watched case before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The court determined the phrase is a generic question as to whether
someone deals drugs.

Legally speaking, "Can you hook me up?" was equated to mean "I am
investigating whether you are a purveyor of narcotics. Do you sell such goods?"

It's a decision that could aid street-level police narcotics
operations across the country.

The case involved a $40 cocaine deal in February 2006 between an
undercover Toronto police officer and Aliu Imoro, in an apartment
building in the northwest section of the city.

The officer was acting on an anonymous tip that a "black male" was
dealing drugs on the 12th floor.

After getting off the elevator, the officer made eye contact with
Imoro in the hallway and asked "can you hook me up?" The officer
walked with an unidentified civilian to an apartment.

The other man purchased marijuana from Imoro and the officer bought
cocaine. Police made a second $40 drug buy the next day and charged
Imoro with trafficking.

Superior Court Justice Nancy Spies acquitted Imoro following a
three-day trial in 2008, on the basis that he was the victim of entrapment.

Police are permitted to randomly offer people an opportunity to
commit a crime if there is "reasonable" evidence it is an area where
criminal activity is occurring. In this case, there was no evidence
to support a "reasonable suspicion" that Imoro was dealing drugs in
the building until the officer asked if he "could hook him up," the
judge stated.

But the Court of Appeal concluded that Judge Spies "mischaracterized"
what the officer was doing, in its ruling issued on Feb. 12. "By the
question 'Can you hook me up?' all the officer really asked Mr. Imoro
was whether he was a drug

dealer. The question was simply a step in the police's investigation
of the anonymous tip. It did not amount to giving Mr. Imoro an
opportunity to traffic in drugs," wrote Justice John Laskin on behalf
of Justices Robert Blair and David Watt.

The arrest, based on the observation of the drug deal in the
apartment, was reasonable and not entrapment, said the appeal court.
It substituted a finding of guilt for Imoro, who will be sentenced at
a later date.

As a sign of the importance placed on this issue, the lead Crown on
the appeal was Morris Pistyner, chief prosecutor in Ontario for the
federal prosecution service.