Cop says he violated chief’s order to save lives

TORONTO — Craig Ruthowsky admitted in Ontario Superior court Thursday that his wiretapped conversation with a drug dealer, while under suspension from the Hamilton Police Service, was a “serious” contravention of the chief ’s direct order.

But he also testified he still doesn’t see anything wrong with it.

“I had an order not to talk to informants and I know I was breaching that, but I breached that order with respect to saving people’s lives,” Ruthowsky, who was suspended in 2012, told a Toronto jury. He referenced several examples where informant tips led to arrests in investigations into violent crime.

“I felt like that was bigger responsibility than adhering to the internal policy of the Hamilton Police Service.”

Ruthowsky, 44, was on the stand for his eighth day at his corruption trial where he has pleaded not guilty to accepting bribes, obstructing justice, breach of trust, drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence.

Crown attorney John Pollard closed the fourth day of cross-examination by taking Ruthowsky through a transcript of the officer’s May 24, 2015, call with the dealer who is the Crown’s main witness. That 14-minute phone call put Ruthowsky on the radar of the Toronto police, who were conducting a major gun and gang project and intercepting the dealer’s phone calls.

That dealer, who cannot be identified due a publication ban, has testified he was paying Ruthowsky $20,000 a month in exchange for tips and police intelligence that allowed him to sell cocaine in Hamilton without fear of arrest. Ruthowsky has insisted the dealer was his confidential informant who was providing him with nuggets of information in order to beat some serious cocaine trafficking charges.

Pollard put to Ruthowsky that during the May 24 call, Ruthowsky gave the dealer a head’s up that “they” — meaning police — could be behind a smashand-grab of two kilos of cocaine from a car parked at Sherway Gardens mall.

Ruthowsky said no, he was only giving the dealer “general” information about police procedures that are already in the “public domain,” and that he, in fact, had persuaded the dealer that the drug theft was likely an inside job.

You gave him the “technique to discover whether it was an inside job or police intervention,” Pollard stated, referring to Ruthowsky suggesting the dealer conduct an “integrity test” on the car’s driver.

“At that point are you not counselling (the dealer) ... (to) initiate a drug transaction?” the prosecutor continued.

“No, I’m just basically averting him from doing something stupid,” Ruthowsky replied.

The officer added if he was indeed on the dealer’s payroll he would have instructed him to ditch his cellphone, change his drug-selling habits and “at no point do I do that.”

The trial continues Friday.