OFFICER DEFENDS HIMSELF

An Ontario Provincial Police constable named in a million-dollar
lawsuit believes he used a reasonable amount of force when arresting
Rick Reimer March 27, 2002.

Constable Tim Broder, a member of the Killaloe OPP detachment,
testified in his own defence Tuesday during the second day of the
civil trial at Pembroke's Superior Court.

Mr. Reimer is suing Const. Broder, Killaloe OPP Sgt. Dwayne Sears
and the province's Crown, claiming wrongful arrest and the use of
excessive force in two arrests March 27, 2002 in the parking lot of
the Killaloe court.

While waiting to go into court to answer an impaired driving charge,
Mr. Reimer, who has a medical exemption that allows him to smoke
marijuana to treat his Multiple Sclerosis, lit a joint and began
smoking it in the parking lot.

Const. Broder, who was at the court on another matter on March 27,
2002, arrested Mr. Reimer twice that day, the first just after 9
a.m. and the second time around 10 a.m.

He was in custody for 26 minutes after the first arrest, according
to the officer's notes from that day, and in custody for 37 minutes
after the second arrest. When asked why it took longer, he explained
it was because he had to go to the detachment to make a copy of the
valid exemption which he found in Mr. Reimer's notebook that was
seized during the second arrest. While at the detachment, he also
spoke with Sgt. Sears and Staff Sgt.

Jim Graham about what had occurred with Mr. Reimer.

The officer believed he had grounds to make the arrests as he saw
Mr. Reimer smoking marijuana and, when asked to provide a copy of a
valid medical exemption, he refused to do so. He testified this led
him to believe Mr. Reimer did not have an exemption and he was
subject to the law like anyone else.

"He confirmed he had marijuana and the refusal to provide the
documentation for the exemption led me to believe he was in
possession of a controlled substance, and because I found him
committing a criminal offence is the reason I made the arrest," the
constable explained.

Const. Broder went on to say he made the request for the exemption
letter because it was his belief that anyone with an exemption must
show it upon request from a police officer.

He made another notation in his notebook that day because he felt it
was an odd and useful statement that spoke to Mr. Reimer's state of
mind at the time of the arrest. The officer read from his notebook
that Mr. Reimer apologized for using him as a pawn, but the
government's system to deal with exemptions was inadequate.

Two days earlier, Mr. Reimer had attended at the Killaloe detachment
and provided an expired exemption letter, which prompted Sgt. Sears
to write an e-mail to all members of the detachment notifying them
Mr. Reimer was without a valid exemption.

Const. Broder had an opportunity to watch the video of the incident
that was entered as an exhibit Monday. He believed it accurately
portrayed the events and he maintained he didn't act too forcefully
with Mr. Reimer or lose his patience as Mr. Reimer's lawyer Bob Howe
suggested.

The video shows Mr. Reimer grabbing the door frame as he was being
escorted inside the building by Const. Broder and Const. Brandon Wilson.

The officer admitted this "active resistance" surprised him, as Mr.
Reimer had been co-operative up to that point.

Mr. Howe pointed out his client resisted because the officers did
not allow him to put out his lit joint before entering the building.
Const. Broder recalled handcuffing Mr. Reimer behind his back once
inside the building. He noted it is his practice to handcuff a
suspect during a search. He didn't recall Mr. Reimer complaining the
cuffs were too tight, nor did he recall him making allegations about
police brutality.

Const. Broder is certified to instruct other officers and provide
lectures on the use of reasonable force when dealing with prisoners
in custody.

During his closing statement, Mr. Howe told the court he believed
the police officers involved in the case had an obligation to go
further to investigate the status of Mr. Reimer's exemption.

He maintains his client had a valid exemption at the time of the
incident because there was a transition period between two sets of
regulations.

He also argued that Mr. Reimer was not obligated to provide his
exemption upon request, but the sitting judge, Mr. Justice C.
McKinnon of Ottawa, pointed out the last line of the document
advises the holder of the exemption should carry it when he or she
is in physical possession of the controlled substance to show he
or she has received an exemption.

He called this statement "so utterly obvious."

"To suggest this letter need not be produced on demand is simply
incomprehensible to me, quite frankly," the judge added.

Mr. Howe submitted it was irresponsible of Sgt. Sears to prepare the
e-mail about the status of Mr. Reimer's exemption, as he relied on
information from another officer and did not follow up himself.

"Sgt. Sears is responsible for the wrongful arrest of Mr. Reimer by
writing the e-mail and using second-hand information," he added.
"Sgt. Sears relies on Const. Burton, Const. Broder relies on Sgt.
Sears and nobody calls Health Canada to get the information.
Ultimately the buck stops with Const. Broder."

Mr. Howe will finish his closing statement this morning and James
Smith for the defendants will make his closing remarks as well
before the judge deliberates on his decision.