COURT RULING ON COP STINGS DESERVES PUBLIC'S APPLAUSE

The scenario is almost always the same, so predictable in fact, that it
truly is remarkable that so many convictions result from near-identical
role-playing operations:

Police cannot get a confession from a suspect in a murder, despite repeated
attempts at interrogation. Convinced the suspect is guilty, the police then
commence an undercover operation, where cops posing as underworld figures
"befriend" the suspect, slowly enticing him or her into a world of supposed
illegal activities.

These can range from purportedly smuggling drugs and other illegal
substances, to the fake laundering of money. Over the course of months, the
suspect is then introduced to "Mr. Big," another police officer posing as
the head of the crime syndicate.

This meeting, which is secretly videotaped, is where the undercover cops
put the heat on the suspect, squeezing hard for a confession by various
means, but generally by dangling a large sum of money in front of their
quarry and assuring the suspect they have a plan that will spare him arrest
and conviction.

When the suspect finally breaks, usually after continually denying
involvement in said crime, the operation is deemed a success and the
shocked suspect prepares for trial.

This scenario has been used by police in dozens and dozens of cases, some
with nation-wide notoriety and a few locally that have contributed to their
fair share of headlines.

However, until now, the media have been prohibited from reporting on more
than the barest of details of such undercover sting operations, even after
the trial's conclusion when, invariably, the suspect is sent to jail.

The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday ruled in favour of the Vancouver
Sun's argument that the media should be free to report on the details of
such undercover operations, and in doing so decided unanimously to overturn
a ban on publication of an undercover scenario that was used to obtain a
confession from a teenage girl suspected of murder.

What this means is that the public may in the future be privy to the
tactics used by police in these operations. And well they should,
considering some of the operations are eyebrow-raising, to say the least.

The court ruled that "restricting the freedom of the press to report on the
details of undercover operations that utilize deception . . . prevents the
public from being informed critics of what may be controversial police
actions." That is not to say there isn't a place for such undercover
operations. They have been used to convict the most heinous of criminals.

However, they have also been used on persons later found innocent in a
court of law; and that reality alone should be enough to lift the veil on
these covert operations, so the public can also form judgment on such matters.