DRUG SEARCH WAS ILLEGAL, JUDGE RULES

The evidence in one of the largest drug seizures in Saskatchewan's
history has been tossed out after a judge ruled the search that
turned up millions of dollar worth of cocaine and marijuana in a
motorhome near Moose Jaw was illegal.

"Admitting the evidence in these circumstances would amount to a
judicial declaration that in the administration of criminal law, the
end justifies the means if the offence is serious and the evidence is
reliable," Court of Queen's Bench Justice Dennis Ball ruled in
excluding the seized drugs.

Ball found a "flagrant disregard" of Charter rights by the Mounties
that "should not lightly be condoned."

The search on the Trans-Canada Highway near Moose Jaw three years ago
uncovered 45 kilograms of cocaine bricks, worth between $1.1 million
and $2.5 million depending how the drugs were sold, and 118 kilograms
of marijuana, valued between $471,000 and $733,000. In addition, RCMP
officers found two bundles of $20 bills totalling $3,080.

The ruling comes in the case of Gerard Stephane Joseph Turpin, a B.C.
man charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose
of trafficking.

Turpin was arrested June 13, 2007 after RCMP pulled over an eastbound
motorhome near Caronport. Arguing Turpin's Charter rights were
violated, defence lawyer James Sutherland applied to have the
evidence ruled inadmissible.

In Ball's written ruling, posted this week to an internet database of
legal decisions, he notes the motorhome was stopped just after 2 p.m.
by RCMP Const. Ian Warner, part of a "roving traffic unit" of
officers experienced in traffic stops that resulted in detecting
drugs. Warner saw the older-model motorhome weave about six times. It
didn't cross the centre line, wasn't speeding, nor was it reported
stolen, the Dec. 1 ruling notes.

Warner testified that he didn't conduct sobriety tests on Turpin, the
driver and lone occupant, because he had no basis for suspecting
impairment. But he did note the accused appeared nervous.

A second officer, Const. Darcy Wilson, arrived within minutes. Wilson
said he smelled fabric softner coming from the motorhome's interior
and believed it was an attempt to mask the smell of alcohol or drugs.

Turpin told Wilson he was driving from Vancouver and had been on the
road 12 hours. Wilson asked for more vehicle documents, and saw about
$2,000 in $20 bills when the accused opened his wallet. Wilson became
more suspicious.

He told court he embarked on an investigation not because of
contraband but because he suspected the motorhome was stolen. Wilson
misread the vehicle identification numbers, and Turpin was arrested
for possession of stolen property and "VIN (vehicle identification
number) tampering."

The motorhome was searched. About 40 to 50 minutes after the initial
stop, RCMP told the accused he was being detained for investigation
into transporting drugs. A drug sniffer dog called "Nugget," detected
something in a vent. Officers discovered the plumbing and holding
tank systems had been disabled, walls had been moved, and secret
compartments created to hide the drugs.

During the search, an officer pointed out to Wilson his mistake in
the vehicle numbers.

Ball agreed with the defence that Turpin's rights against
unreasonable search and seizure, not to be arbitarily detained, and
to instruct counsel without delay were violated.

The judge concluded his detention for possession of stolen property
"was a pretext to justify a search of the vehicle for illegal drugs."
He also found it "improbable" that Wilson detected the scent of
fabric softener while outside the vehicle on the windy day, nor was
any such product recorded at the time of the seizure. (An aerosol can
of softner and a box of detergent was discovered three years later in
the still impounded vehicle.)

Ball called Wilson's inability to compare the two, clearly matching
VINs either the result of wilful blindness or flagrant negligence.

Citing the ruling in a similar Saskatchewan drug case involving some
of the same officers, Ball said, "The cavalier approach to search and
seizure demonstrated by the members of the roving traffic unit may
not have been unique to this case."