Seized drugs can be evidence at trial, judge rules

She had a warrant, he didn’t look like car’s owner, then police found drugs

Drugs found by police in a car parked in City Park can be submitted to a trial as evidence, even though the search that found them was questionable, a judge ruled this week.

Rebecka Lynn Hill and Derek Wolfe Leeming were sitting in a Ford Fusion when spotted by police in 2017, BC Supreme Court has heard.

Hill had a warrant for her arrest and the car, which had failed inspection, was discovered to be owned by an elderly man in Surrey.

When police arrested Hill on her warrant for charges of possession of a controlled substance and driving while prohibited, they found three bags, which contained drugs, sitting at her feet. Police then arrested the pair for possession for the purposes of trafficking.

Hill and Leeming claimed the search was illegal and their Charter rights were violated.

BC Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes agreed with them to a point, but decided allowing the evidence, and therefore the trial to proceed, was in the public interest.

“This evidence, being real evidence, was reliable in showing that a large amount of drugs and cash were in the car. The charges were serious and reflected conduct of grave concern to the public. Without the evidence in issue, the Crown would have no case in the trial. These factors weigh in favour of admission,” the judge wrote in her decision.

She agreed the bags shouldn’t have been searched, but disagreed the evidence should now be excluded.

“Cst. Greig did not need to search Ms. Hill in order to identify her … Cst. Greig was not searching for evidence associated with the reason for the arrest,” Holmes wrote.

“Ms. Hill contends that her arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking was unlawful, and in violation of her … Charter right, because the arrest was not supported by reasonable and probable grounds to believe that she was committing that offence.

“I cannot agree, the judge wrote. “Ms. Hill was one of only two people in the vehicle, and was in very close proximity to the two bags. The bags contained large amounts of drugs and cash. Moreover, Ms. Hill acknowledged ownership.

“The violation of their privacy rights was not trivial. But nor was it in the upper half of the spectrum of seriousness.

The judge also questioned the officers’ decision to tow the car. Hill claimed her right to call a lawyer was denied. The judge ruled it was only delayed until she was taken to the detachment.

The judge said if allowing the evidence doesn’t bring the justice system into disrepute, then it should be proceed. “This case comes very close to the line, but the balance favours the admission of the evidence,” Holmes wrote.