Another unlawful strip search, another crumbling criminal case.

A Toronto judge has thrown out all drug evidence seized from Stuart MacPherson, finding Toronto police had no reasonable grounds to pull back his pants and boxer shorts at the scene of his arrest to locate concealed drugs near his tail bone.

Ontario Court Justice Sheila Ray also noted in her ruling released last week that at least one of the officers did not seem to even be aware that there was a Toronto police policy on strip searches, and that both officers thought what they did was entirely appropriate.

“The officers were ignorant of the law,” the judge wrote. “They thought that exigent circumstances justified what they did, and that what they did was not a strip search. They were wrong, and this should not have happened.”

The judge excluded the drug evidence, finding MacPherson’s charter right to unreasonable search and seizure had been violated.

Strip-searching is “inherently humiliating and degrading,” the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a landmark case 17 years ago known as R v. Golden, and should only be done when there are reasonable grounds, such as looking for weapons or evidence related to the arrest.

A person should also not be strip-searched outside of a police station unless there are exceptional circumstances, Ray said.

It’s the latest case of a criminal matter put in jeopardy because police failed to follow the case law and their own policies on strip-searching. Toronto police, in particular, have faced repeated criticism on the issue, as other court cases have also shown that officers are not always aware of the various types of strip searches and when and how they can be conducted.

“It is disheartening to learn that Toronto’s front line officers are still not aware of legal precedents and internal policies governing the limits on strip searches that have been in place for well over a decade,” said criminal defence lawyer Daniel Brown, who was not involved in the case.

“This is especially so given the sheer volume of serious criminal cases that are withdrawn or dismissed each year due to non-compliance with this constitutional protection.”

The province-wide problem has gotten so serious that the Office of the Independent Police Review Director is currently conducting a systemic review of police strip search practices.

Toronto police spokesperson Meaghan Gray said the officers involved would not be commenting, and that Ray’s ruling will be the subject of a professional standards investigation.

She said the police service does have a policy on Level 3 searches — which is the removal of some or all of a person’s clothing and a visual inspection of the body — and that it describes when and how such a search can be performed.

It is the most intrusive search of a person with the exception of a body cavity search, known as a Level 4 search.

MacPherson’s next court date is Oct. 10. His lawyer, G.J. Partington, told the Star it would be “most improbable” for the Crown to proceed on a drug case that no longer has any admissible drug evidence.

He said he expects his client to be found not guilty on charges that include possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession of marijuana.

Officers Matthew Steele and James Doyle had received information that a car matching MacPherson’s had been driving erratically in the neighbourhood, Ray wrote in her ruling. She said they had good reason to speak with MacPherson at that point, in order to check his sobriety and documents, and if there was no issue, to let him continue on his way.

The officers testified that when they approached the car, they saw hand movements “that suggested Mr. MacPherson was concealing something down his pants,” Ray wrote, finding there was a legitimate concern that MacPherson could be hiding a weapon.

However, the judge said all that was necessary to determine if MacPherson had a weapon was a pat down search, which did not happen.

Ray disagreed with the officers that there was urgency in seeing what MacPherson had concealed in his boxer shorts. They pulled back his pants and boxers to find baggies of drugs at his tail bone, leaving MacPherson’s buttocks exposed for several seconds.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“It was totally unnecessary to verify in the field what exactly was being stuffed down the pants or underwear,” she said. “That could have waited. There was no urgency. Nothing in Mr. MacPherson’s pants was running away.”

The police believed that the search inside MacPherson’s clothing did not constitute a strip search, but Ray found otherwise.

“It involved the rearrangement of the boxer shorts and pants, that is, pulling them back. This permitted a visual inspection of a private area, the buttocks, and further exposed undergarments, which were already partially exposed. This is a strip search.”