Court allows unjust search

Feb. 13

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms acknowledges that Canadians enjoy certain liberties and protection from the arbitrary acts of government and the legal system.

The Constitution does not, however, give the courts the right to choose – on the basis of alleged worries about serious crimes – when the fundamental freedom from illegal search and seizure should be suspended. That was at issue when the Ontario Court of Appeal "approved the use of evidence obtained through flagrant police misconduct."

It is to be hoped that this matter will find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Allowing lower courts to cherry-pick when the Constitution shall or shall not be upheld amounts to judicial activism of the worst sort, undermines the rule of law and threatens to bring the criminal justice system into disrepute.

Howard A. Doughty, Richmond Hill

Associate Chief Justice Dennis O'Connor and Justice James MacPherson of the Ontario Court of Appeal should be commended for upholding the trial judge's decision in this case. Too many criminals are walking free because of some silly technicality allowed by a flawed Charter of Rights, which gives more leeway to those who break the law than it does to the police and courts.

Was it so horribly wrong of OPP Const. Brian Bertoncello to stop and search a car without apparent justification? Hardly. Police officers do it all the time in R.I.D.E. and similar safety programs.

It is uplifting to see some common sense applied in the justice system.

Eileen Hutcheson, Acton, Ont.

What a stunning story. That our Charter of Rights – which draws a clear line in the sand between what is acceptable by police and what is not in the course of performing their duties – has been ignored is frightening. That two judges actually defied the very law that they pledged to uphold is appalling.

At a time when our justice system is justifiably under scrutiny (most recently, charges against six Toronto police officers were stayed due to the length of the process), these Ontario Court of Appeal judges decided to condone illegal police activity. When the majority concluded that the public was willing, in this case, to accept Charter violations committed by the officer, they made a huge error in judgment.

At no time is the public willing to accept Charter violations.

Michel De Lottinville,

Wasaga Beach, Ont.

Hallelujah! At last, a decision from the courts that makes sense.

Turning a blind eye to 35 kilograms of cocaine because of a technicality would grievously impact the confidence of Canadians in the justice system. This is the first tangible step to recognizing that the bad guys can't be allowed to hide behind laws that were meant to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

Who seriously believes that we should let this guy walk after finding 35 kilos of cocaine in his vehicle? Only lawyers, I guess.

Judy Reddick, London, Ont.

It's nice to know that our justice system is now run so efficiently that the Ontario Court of Appeal can simply override the Charter of Rights. I guess Section 8, which states that "everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure," should be amended to include "unless you might have something to hide."

But don't panic, citizens. The court has graciously concluded that "the public, at least in this case, is willing to put up with the significant Charter violations committed by (the OPP officer)."

Peter Hawes, Richmond Hill

Finally, a court has properly put public safety ahead of the rights of suspected wrongdoers. For years, the courts have thought it best to dismiss charges when the accused's rights were violated, as though two wrongs made a right.

If someone is suspected of a crime and the evidence is improperly obtained, it is best for society that the crime be dealt with. If the police are also guilty of wrongdoing in performing their duties, that should be dealt with as a separate issue.

Eric Severn, Toronto

More proof that the government, police and judiciary in Canada are all systematically corrupt. Cops are allowed to break rules for the "greater good"? I thought the "rule of law" was the thing that separated us from the head-chopping savages of other nations. Apparently not.

Russell Barth, Ottawa

This decision is a hugely welcome change. The rights of honest citizens are becoming more important than the rights of criminals. Who would have thunk it?

Claude Gannon, Markham