BOTCHED RAID HEARING ENDS

A hearing officer is deciding whether a London police officer should
be found guilty of misconduct after a botched drug raid left a pet dog
dead. The Ontario Civilian Commission of Police Services ordered the
hearing after concluding Det. Const. Lou Lovsin may have committed a
serious misconduct when inaccurate information from a confidential
informant was used to obtain a search warrant.

Lovsin pleaded not guilty yesterday.

The internal tribunal, headed by hearing officer Neil Sweeney, is
looking at whether Lovsin took proper measures to confirm the veracity
of the informant's tip.

The search warrant he obtained was used to enter Marcie Carroll's
Oxford Street apartment Oct. 23, 2002, to search for drugs.

Carroll wasn't home and her pet dog, Bear, was shot four times during
the search.

The tribunal lasted seven hours yesterday and heard from three
witnesses -- an expert in police search and seizure practices, Carroll
and Carroll's former landlord, Berta Liddiard.

Lovsin wasn't called to testify.

Instead, he sat quietly next to his lawyer, Mike Epstein, in a black
suit with his hands clasped in front of him.

In an agreed statement of facts, read into the record by prosecuting
attorney Steven Boorne, the tribunal heard OPP Det. Mark Loader was
tipped off by a paid confidential informant that there were drugs in a
unit of a building at 1451 Oxford St. and police should look for
Jeffrey Maslen.

Loader relayed the information to Lovsin Oct. 22, 2002.

The following day, the informant told Loader drugs had been seen in
the apartment within the past 24 hours. Loader again told Lovsin, who
applied for a warrant.

After the search, police learned Maslen didn't live in the
apartment.

They also discovered two officers were at the unit in July 2002
following a dispute. Those officers returned in August looking for
Maslen, but his brother told them he didn't live there.

Since the officers couldn't confirm Maslen no longer lived there, they
never entered the information into a police database.

In the meantime, Carroll had moved into the unit.

Yesterday, Boorne called an expert in search and seizure practices,
who said police have to be careful when using informants.

Michael Chevers, who helped develop the search and seizure training
course at the Ontario Police College near Aylmer, said police should
try to answer four questions when applying for a warrant, including
how they know the person they're looking for is at the address they're
searching.

Chevers said police can answer that question using telephone records,
conducting registration checks on vehicles, looking at city records or
using other police officers to corroborate evidence.

Carroll's lawyer, Faisal Joseph, asked Chevers which checks Lovsin did
before applying for the warrant.

Chevers said he didn't know.

In his submission, Joseph said Lovsin's actions amount to misconduct
because follow-ups to confirm Maslen still lived in the apartment
weren't performed.

"There is a responsibility and a duty for this officer to get this
information. That is his job," he told Sweeney, a retired Toronto
police officer.

"If follow-ups had been made, we wouldn't be here."

Epstein told Sweeney he should find Lovsin had every reason to believe
what Loader told him. He said Lovsin checked London police records for
information on Maslen, even after Loader presented him with similar
information.

Those records -- although three months old -- showed Maslen had lived
in the apartment as of July 2002.

Sweeney's decision is expected before Dec. 25.