DECISION RESERVED IN SUIT AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS

After hearing three days of testimony and submissions, Ottawa Justice
C. McKinnon has reserved his decision in the civil suit launched by
Rick Reimer against two Ontario Provincial Police officers and the
province's Crown attorney.

He will provide a written decision to the parties involved in the
case, but did not give a timeframe, although he did indicate he will
hear two new cases in the coming weeks, signalling a potential delay
in the process.

Before dismissing counsel, Mr. Justice McKinnon commended Bob Howe,
for the plaintiff, and James Smith, for the defendants, on
well-presented cases and arguments that addressed interesting issues.

The officers named in the suit are Sergeant Dwayne Sears and Constable
Tim Broder, both of the Killaloe OPP detachment.

Mr. Reimer alleges wrongful arrest and detention and excessive use of
force.

During his closing remarks, Mr. Smith argued Const. Broder had
reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Mr. Reimer in the Killaloe
court parking lot March 27, 2002 after he found him openly and
admittedly smoking marijuana but did not produce a valid medical
exemption at the officer's request.

As far as police knew, Mr. Reimer did not have a current exemption as
the one he presented at the detachment two days prior to the arrest
was expired, he said.

"He (Mr. Reimer) had something, was required to produce it to avoid
arrest, refused to produce it and recently didn't produce it so the
logical conclusion is that you don't have it to give," Mr. Smith argued.

On the allegation of excessive force, his clients deny the assault and
he believes the evidence shows an assault did not occur.

Mr. Smith urged Mr. Justice McKinnon to consider the videotape
evidence and look closely at Mr. Reimer to determine if he appeared to
have any sign of injury when he emerged from the building after the
first arrest.

At one point in the video, after the first arrest, Mr. Reimer holds
his appearance notice up to the camera so Doug Hempstead can focus on
the text.

The judge noted he did not notice any lacerations or marks on the
wrists of Mr. Reimer although the plaintiff claimed the handcuffs were
too tight as Const. Broder left them on while he was detained in the
cell.

Mr. Smith also suggested that if Mr. Reimer was brutalized by police,
as he now claims, he would have said something on video.

"This is Rick Reimer. He's not afraid of the camera. He is not someone
who is afraid to speak his mind," Mr. Smith said. "The whole world was
watching and he could have said whatever he wanted and he shows the
appearance notice. If it had really happened he would have complained
about the injustice instantly, loudly and insistently, but he didn't."

During Mr. Howe's closing statement, which he continued Wednesday, he
argued that his clients Charter rights to life, liberty and security
(Section 7); to be secure against unreasonable search (Section 8) and
seizure and to not be arbitrarily detained and imprisoned (Section 9)
were breached on the day in question.

Section 8 refers to the seizure of Mr. Reimer's blue notebook which
contained his valid exemption and led to his eventual release and
having his property returned, the judge pointed out. Section 9 refers
to the 26 minutes and 37 minutes he was in custody for each arrest.

"On the wrongfulness of detention and the Charter breaches, I'll
submit on evidence because the arrest was legitimate and lawful the
brief detention after each arrest was not wrongful and could not be
wrongful," Mr. Smith said in reply.

He went onto suggest Mr. Reimer "precipitated and constructed the
situation" himself but his own actions, adding if he would have
produced his exemption letter when requested the outcome would have
been different.

"Each moment Mr. Reimer sat there he could have been released himself,
but he chose not to and determined how long each period was," Mr.
Smith added. "There is no clear or legal reason why he chose to
prolong the time he was held by police. He refused to do what he should do."

When providing submissions about damages to be awarded to his client,
Mr. Howe asked the judge to consider the physical pain caused to Mr.
Reimer when Const. Broder allegedly twisted his arms during the
arrest, as well as the embarrassment he felt when he was arrested
outside the court where members of the public were watching.

Mr. Justice McKinnon did not accept this argument, however, noted Mr.
Reimer had invited the media to court that day, intent on discussing
his views that the federal government had failed its obligations to
pass clear legislation when providing medical marijuana exemptions.

"He failed to provide a valid exemption and he knew he would be
arrested," the judge said. "He invited it to demonstrate the federal
government should pass new legislation. In terms of an arrest in the
public sphere, he can't complain about embarrassment because that is
what he was seeking."

Mr. Howe said his client recognized his arrest was possible but added
he did not see it as a necessary outcome.

"He held out hope that another result might have happened as a result
of things he pointed out to the officers," Mr. Howe said.