PSIT 'DETECTIVES' CROSS BOUNDARIES IN HUNT FOR GROW-OPS

Dear Editor,

It was my understanding the initial premise of the PSIT team was to
investigate electrical/fire safety hazards in homes where there was
unusually high electrical consumption.

Correcting safety hazards and displacing or discouraging grow-ops
sounds great. Who wouldn't support the program? If the team found a
grow-op, it would be left to the RCMP; if they found electrical
hazards, they would issue corrective instructions or disconnect the
meter if there was an immediate danger of fire or explosion.

However, there are indications the PSIT team may be overstepping its
mandate [Grow-op power attack extended, Oct. 23, Langley Advance].

Instead of simply displacing or discouraging grow-ops and correcting
safety hazards, the PSIT team has become detectives, searching not for
hazards, but whatever it can call evidence of a grow-op, past or
present. In addition, the team seems to be taking punitive actions
against taxpayers who are themselves victims, left to pay for someone
else's activity. I am not certain how shutting off a landlord's well
water increases the safety of a neighbourhood.

I agree landlords must pay for their rental properties in a safe
condition; however, I question the validity of the $3,700 inspection
fee if no grow-op is found.

If no grow-op is found, what is considered illegal: evidence that a
grow-op may or may not have existed at one time?

Early assumptions can bias the interpretation of evidence found later.
If the evidence found is not admissible in court or suitable for use
by police officers, how can the Township use subjective or
circumstantial materials as grounds to charge its citizens?

I don't think the Community Charter, the Fire Services Act, or
Township bylaws give anyone the authority to say unequivocally that a
criminal act has taken place, without the due process of the law being
followed.

Eventually someone will challenge this approach in court, and the
Township's citizens and taxpayers will pay the costs for that litigation.

No one wants drug operations in our community; however, as a civilized
society, we must respect the laws of our country. I think the majority
of concern is with the court system, rather than the laws that govern
search and seizure.

If the laws or court systems are inadequate, then we need to change
them through legitimate means, not employ five Township employees to
circumvent the law on our behalf.

Our legal system is designed with checks and balances to provide
uniform protection for the rights of all citizens from wrongful
judgments. There are no such checks and balances with the PSIT team -
five men can decide your fate, with no appeal process available. If
the PSIT team says it's so, there is no way to question their judgment.

Martin Luther King once said, "Justice denied anywhere diminishes
justice everywhere."

B. Mykle,

Langley