REIMER LOSES COURT BATTLE

Marijuana Activist Rick Reimer Has Lost His Day In Court.

In a written decision released Thursday, Ottawa Justice C. McKinnon
threw out the $3 million civil suit launched by the former Pembroke
lawyer, who possesses a medical exemption to smoke, grow and
cultivate marijuana to treat his Multiple Sclerosis.

The suit named Killaloe OPP officers Constable Tim Broder and
Sergeant Dwayne Sears as well as the Ontario Crown attorney, citing
wrongful arrest and detention and excessive use of force allegedly
arising from an incident which occurred in the winter of 2002. At the
time, Mr. Reimer had been openly smoking marijuana while conducting a
television interview and when approached by police, refused to
produce written proof he has a medical exemption for using the drug.

In his decision, Justice McKinnon said there is no evidence to back
any of Mr. Reimer's claims of either excessive force or wrongful
arrest except for his oral testimony.

While agreeing with the argument there is a parallel in law between
the written medical exemption granted Mr. Reimer and a Minister's
permit to remain in Canada under the Canadian Immigration Act, he
said it is a stretch to assume because there is no legal requirement
to present the immigration permit, the same would apply to a medical
exception to smoke marijuana.

"It defies logic to suggest that an individual who is granted a
ministerial exemption from the law of the country, which exemption is
granted in writing, should not be required to produce the written
document on demand to prove the exemption," Justice McKinnon said.

"He was the author of his own misfortune," the judge concluded. "Had
he complied with the legal requirement to produce the exemption that
he enjoyed, setting him apart from all other Canadians who are
subject to the drug laws of this country, this unfortunate lawsuit
could have been avoided. In refusing to comply with the legal demand,
he triggered the events of which he complains.

"Unfortunately, his only reward shall be the publicity which he
sought and obtained on the morning of March 27, 2002."

When contacted by phone, Mr. Reimer said he wasn't sure what his next
step will be, as he needs time to fully digest the ruling and explore
his options.

"I have not yet decided whether to appeal," he said. "I have only had
the decision a few hours, and need time to speak with my lawyer and others."

Mr. Reimer said with all due respect to the judge, he still feels he
doesn't need to produce documentation showing he is allowed to smoke
marijuana even if asked to do so.

"The crucial issue is whether I was right or the police were right
over this," he said.

"I read the law very carefully and I know without any doubt that I am right."

Mr. Reimer disagreed with the judge's assessment regarding his
medical exemption.

"The judge equates 'common sense' to a legal requirement. In my
respectful opinion, that is not the law in this country," he said.

"You shouldn't get arrested for having 'uncommon' sense, like
refusing to speak to police, unless there is an explicit law
identifying what 'common' sense means. That's why, for example, you
can get a ticket for failing to carry your driver's licence, while
the charge for driving if you've never had a licence is much more serious."

During the lawsuit proceedings held at the end of May, it was stated
Mr. Reimer was at Killaloe court March 27, 2002 for a first
appearance on an impaired driving charge laid Feb. 11, 2002, when he
was stopped for smoking a marijuana cigarette while driving.

Before entering the court on March 27, Mr. Reimer met A-Channel
videographer Doug Hempstead in the parking lot and conducted an
interview about the case. With the camera rolling, Mr. Reimer was
approached by Const. Broder who asked to see a copy of his medical
exemption. During the conversation, the officer said he was aware of
the plaintiff's exemption but he needed to see a copy of the letter.
Mr. Reimer was arrested after he refused to give the officer the
necessary documentation, claiming he is not required to produce the
exemption on demand from a police officer.

Mr. Reimer claimed once inside the building, Const. Broder pushed his
face up against the wall and twisted his arms behind his back to
place him in handcuffs. He testified the pain was so great that he
had to stand on his tip toes in an attempt to relieve the pressure,
adding he experienced surges of pain periodically for the next nine
months. He also testified the handcuffs were so tight he had
lacerations on his wrists as well as a laceration on his left palm
when his hand was removed from the door jam.

In his decision, Justice McKinnon said there is no medical reports,
photographs, third party evidence or trips to the doctor to
substantiate Mr. Reimer's complaints of abuse or pain suffered as a
result thereof. The best evidence dealing with this allegation is the
video tape of a follow-up interview with Mr. Reimer.

"After being released from his cell, Mr. Reimer made no complaint
whatsoever about the use of excessive force. He is seen smiling, his
wrists are visible and no abrasions are apparent," he said.

"I have no doubt that had excessive force been used, Mr. Reimer would
have complained about the fact to the videographer, Mr. Hempstead."

Mr. Reimer stood by his decision to launch the lawsuit.

"My motive in bringing this action was to demonstrate that police
must be very sure before they use an awesome power like arresting
someone," he said.

"When they're wrong, they must be taken to task. Even when they're
right, they must accord people, even actual criminals, with
appropriate respect and use no more force than is necessary."