|
|
|||
|
~
Rick Reimer ~ R.R.#2 March 28, 2002.
To: Ontario Provincial
Police, Killaloe Attn: Const. T. Broder And to: Peter Barnes, Crown Attorney, County of Renfrew And to: Tim McCann, Federal Prosecutor, County of Renfrew And to: Sean Conway, MPP And to: Cheryl Gallant, MP And to: Ontario Court of Justice Attn: D. Pinkerton, Clerk And to: Right Hon. Anne McLellan, Minister of Health And to: Health Canada Attn: C. Cripps-Prawak And to: Senate Committee on Drug Use, Senate of Canada And to: The New RO Attn: Doug Hempstead And to: Alison Myrden, Medical Marijuana Website And to: Ottawa Citizen Attn: Kurt Johnson, Letters Editor And to: C.P.A.C. News Atttn: Dan Fonda And to: Eganville Leader And to: Cannabis Culture And to: Barry's Bay This Week
This letter is going to be long and rambling. For that I apologize. One purpose of this letter is to assist me to document facts while they're fresh in my mind. To that end, I have sacrificed grammar and organization. Many parts of this letter will be repetitive. To those addressees whose interest or involvement in what I have to say is limited or academic, I apologize in particular. However, I urge each and every recipient to bear with me and to read this letter thoroughly and then circulate the contents of the same as far and as wide as possible. I am an honest man telling an honest story. A story which has frightening implications for our Canadian Justice system and particularly for our already precarious medical marijuana scheme.
Some preliminary matters:
1) Mr. Conway, I expect you to relay my concerns immediately and thoroughly to the Ontario Minister of the Solicitor-General, who is responsible for overseeing the Ontario Provincial Police, and afterwards to vigorously follow up my concerns,
2) Mr. Barnes, you have told me an Ottawa Crown Attorney will be prosecuting my case. Please ensure this letter reaches him or her immediately. I need to know from the prosecutor whether or not they have any objection to my sharing this letter with Justice McPhee, who was presiding over court March 27, when these events transpired, and who will probably conduct my trial. By the way, Mr. Barnes, I still await disclosure on the 253(a) charge and am not waiving my 11(b) rights and particularly need to know immediately what evidence the prosecution intends to lead to establish that consumption of marijuana impairs driving ability. The prosecutor may also want to consider the ramifications of Const. Broder's possession of my notes concerning the February 11 arrest, discussed in more detail below,
3) Mr. Hempstead, I ask you to ensure sanctity of the videotape you took of my arrests on March 27th, and to provide me with a copy of the original raw footage. In particular, I need to retrieve a copy of the blue form Appearance Notice (Accused Copy) which you filmed. This piece of paper was subsequently stolen from me by Constable T. Broder, and it may be that you have the only remaining documentary evidence of its existence and its contents. I also ask you to be prepared to circulate (or authorize circulation by myself) of copies of the videotape. By virtue of this letter, you and your employer have my permission to distribute any and all information concerning myself to any person, at your discretion. I also refer you and your station, of course, to paragraph 5) below,
4) Ms Gallant, I am hoping you know somebody who is interested in Canadian justice, to whom you might refer this letter,
5) To Mr. Johnson (of the Ottawa Citizen) and other members of the media: This letter is obviously not going to be printable, given its dual nature as a public declaration and legal notice (and especially considering its length) but I invite you to disseminate all or any part, and I will be happy to alter the letter or amplify upon any issue upon your invitation. I further invite you to contact me through your reporting staff. I and other medical marijuana exemptees and advocates are willing and anxious to give this important issue as much attention and debate as possible,
6) Mr. McCann, you are receiving this because Constable Broder issued to me (at about 10:00 a.m. March 27) an appearance notice, requiring me to appear on a charge of possession of a Schedule II substance, contrary to section 4(1) of the C.D.S.A. This appearance notice requires me to appear 9:30 a.m. April 10, 2002, Courtroom #1, Killaloe Medical Centre. This is a prosecution within your jurisdiction. Constable Broder's subsequent theft of my copy of the appearance notice (described in more detail below) does not, in my opinion, alter my obligation to appear in court, and I intend to be there. Const. Broder's assurance that no charges are actually going to be laid against me does not, in my opinion, alter the enforceability of my promise. Were Broder to renege on his assertion (a completely plausible scenario) and lay a charge and I were not present on April10, I would clearly be guilty of failure to appear in court. Loss or destruction or theft of the appearance notice wouldn't constitute a defence. That the theft was committed by a police officer (even the very one who issued the notice) doesn't alter my legal position. As I told Broder time and again March 27th, it is not the place of he or any other police officer to determine which laws I do or do not obey. That choice is mine and mine alone.
7) To Constable Broder and Staff Sergeant Graham, among other things, this is notice of my intention to bring legal action against you and the Ontario Provincial Police for wrongful arrest and imprisonment, AND THIS IS FURTHER TO LODGE AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT AGAINST CONSTABLE T. BRODER FOR USING UNNECESSARY FORCE IN EFFECTING MY ARREST, EVEN IF THAT ARREST HAD BEEN LEGAL WHICH IT WAS NOT, A FACT WHICH BRODER EITHER KNEW OR OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN. Sgt. Graham, I also expect you to circulate this letter to Const. Wilson and Inch, so that I may know if they disagree with any of the facts I've recited,
8) This letter is sent to Minister McLellan and Ms Cripps-Prawak in the hope of promoting some sensibility and rationality in the medical marijuana provisions of our law. I hope that exposure of one particular flaw in the scheme might prompt inspection of the scheme, leading to government discovery of the hypocritical and nonsensical aspects of the scheme. I offer to the government my assistance (and that of other advocates who permit me to speak on their behalf) in crafting a more sensible scheme, which offer has been previously made,
9) To the Senate committee on drug use to demonstrate the farce and travesty our current drug laws create and perpetuate, and the needless and shameful physical, spiritual and legal injury inflicted upon harmless Canadians in the name of such laws,
This letter recounts events at Killaloe Court, Mill Street, from approximately 9:00a.m. to 11:00 a.m. March 27. I was at court for a first appearance on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by consumption of a drug. This charge was laid by Const. B. Burton, the alleged offence date being February 11, 2002.
I and my girlfriend, Tammy Lewis, arrived at court at 9:00 a.m. The crown attorney (Ms Elizabeth Ives-Ruyter) was already present. I mention this because it struck me later that during the entire fiasco described in this letter, Ms Ives-Ruyter was present and presumably (relatively) unoccupied. Had Const. Broder at some point taken a moment to ask the Crown Attorney if I (Reimer) might possibly be right (or, indeed, if Broder had taken a moment to call Health Canada) a great deal of confrontation might have been avoided. It is unfortunate indeed that Broder obviously chose not to avail himself of these opportunities.
On our arrival, Ms Lewis and I conversed briefly with Ms Ives-Ruyter and then stood in the parking lot. I was smoking marijuana. Mr. Doug Hempstead, of the New RO television (having been notified by myself) was next to arrive. Shortly afterwards, two O.P.P. cruisers (3 officers) arrived. Constable Broder accosted me in the parking lot. After making some comments about the medicinal marijuana exemption I'd shown to Const. Burton March 25th (my fingerprint date on the impaired operation charge), he asked if I had a current exemption. I explained that I meant him no disrespect, but I was not obliged to speak with him and didn't wish to do so.
I was then arrested by Const. Broder and handled quite roughly (as one can easily see from Mr. Hempstead's video, part of which was aired on the New RO - 6:00 p.m. news - March 27, 2002) in spite of the fact that I offered no resistance and was known to the officer (and accompanying Const. Wilson) to be suffering from a neurological disease (Multiple Sclerosis) that gave rise to my exemption. Anyone who wishes a copy of this videotape is invited to contact myself or Mr. Hempstead who is authorized, by this letter, to distribute copies should he wish to do so.
I was dragged into the Medical Centre building when I had told Const. Broder and Wilson quite clearly that I simply wished to put out my joint before entering the court building, which I knew to be smoke-free. Broder wouldn't allow me a second to put out my joint and pulled me inside the doorway, then twisted my arms behind my back and pushed me face-first against the wall inside the doorway. There was absolutely no need for this. I had been standing outside peacefully smoking without bothering anyone and the circumstances of the arrest didn't present any immediate need to bring me forcefully and unwillingly indoors. I did nothing to suggest my demeanour would be any less peaceful upon being arrested. In fact, I took great pains to point out that my understanding that Broder was simply doing his job and I mine. When I again told Broder I just wanted to put out my joint before entering a known non-smoking building, he had the gall to say: "I won't bust you for a smoking by-law". I told Broder (and I repeat now and hope no other officers are unaware) that it is not up to him (Broder) to decide which laws I do or do not obey. That is my decision.
Constable Broder's arrest was unnecessarily brutal. I am a sick man, smaller and older than Broder who also had weapons and the assistance of Const. Wilson with at least one other officer available in the building, and an entire detachment minutes away. I presume Broder also had the capability to radio for more officers' help had he chosen to do so. Besides, I offered no resistance and clearly had no intention to attempt escape. As I type this letter 48 hours afterwards - Friday morning (and even as I revise it Sunday March 31 ) my arms are still sore from being twisted high up behind my back. My wrists are still sore from handcuffs applied much too tightly even when I was already in a cell. I have a scratch on my back and a small laceration on my left palm from where I attempted to hold on to the doorway so as to extinguish my joint. Is it not the duty of the police to use no more force than is reasonably necessary even in conducting legal arrests? It was patent to any unbiased observer that absolutely no force was warranted to effect my arrest. In fact, Broder's fellow officer Burton had arrested me on February 11th (for the initial impaired driving offence) and I'd be surprised if Burton and his back-up officer (Const. Caissie) hadn't discussed with their fellow officers my patent lack of resistance.
Both of my arrests were clearly illegal. I knew this and told Broder and other officers this several times before, during, and after the arrests. I told them that the marijuana exemption scheme contains no requirement that I present it (the exemption) to anyone, and my purpose was to expose this, and other flaws in the system via the media in the hope the government would eventually take notice. The medical marijuana scheme does not, in any way, curtail my right to decline to speak with anyone (including any police officer) whenever I so choose (assuming I'm not, for example, driving a car or carrying a gun, etc.) I told Broder that this unfortunate Catch-22 created by the Federal government was only one of the hypocritical and unworkable parts of the medical marijuana scheme which, in my opinion, had to be exposed. Along with all the impossible requirements imposed upon exemptees, the government had unfortunately also put the police in the untenable position of having (in effect) to guess whether or not any marijuana smoker had a medical exemption. Sure, I could easily have shown Broder my exemption, and most exemptees might do likewise, but a law ought to be scrutinized (as to its efficacy and rationality) based upon the supposition that the police might occasionally encounter a person, such as myself, who knows his rights and insists that those rights be respected. Anything less would mean we're paying only lip service to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That may be good enough for the police, but it's not good enough for me and shouldn't satisfy the judiciary or government.
When the police are supposed to be the protectors of our rights, shouldn't we place upon them a higher obligation to respect the rights of others? If we begin rewarding or even ignoring a successful violation of rights by the police, we feed into the notion that appears to be taking hold in our police forces, namely that police don't just administer the law, they become the law! A scary notion, indeed!
Health Canada is supposed to notify police departments of those persons within their jurisdiction who have exemptions and the expiry dates of those exemptions. I gave Health Canada a release authorizing the communication of this information to police over two years ago. It is unfortunate (though not surprising) that this hasn't been enough time for them to get on the job. In any event, it was common knowledge among the Killaloe O.P.P. that I had a medical exemption, and, in my opinion, it is incumbent upon an officer making an arrest in the face of such knowledge, to make inquiries of Health Canada first. I will be surprised indeed to learn that any representative of the Killaloe O.P.P. contacted Health Canada to clarify the currency or terms of my exemption, although there was ample time to do so between March 25 and 27. Am I to be mistreated because the Federal government and the O.P.P. haven't managed to get their act together?
The arrest was illegal because I had committed no offence. No police officer, acting reasonably, could have reasonably and probably believed that I had committed any offence, unless "reasonable" is interpreted purely subjectively, and willful blindness of the law by the officer is ignored. Willful blindness isn't a defence for ordinary citizens. Why should willful blindness be tolerated as an excuse for illegal behaviour committed by trained police officers?
The first arrest (and even more patently the second) was also illegal as being in contravention of the Criminal Code provisions concerning warrantless arrests for summary conviction offences. Broder clearly suspected me of nothing beyond a summary conviction offence, namely the offence with which he eventually charged me, that of possession of a Schedule II substance, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. An arrest clearly wasn't necessary to determine my identity. Nor was an arrest necessary to secure evidence (the only ground advanced by Broder in a subsequent conversation with me). Surely that ground isn't established in the absence of a request (by Broder) and a demurral (by me) to turn over my marijuana. No such request was made. To argue that an arrest was necessary to prevent repetition of the offence (i.e.: "I couldn't let him go. He'd probably go try to find more marijuana") is nonsensical, and leads to the absurd and irrational conclusion that no arrested person can ever be released.
After I'd been held in the Killaloe Courtroom Cell for about ½ hour, Const. Broder returned to release me on an appearance notice. I told him again that the arrest had been illegal and why (i.e.: the absence of any legal requirement to show my exemption) and that he had no right to retain any of my marijuana (I had been arrested with about 7 joints in my possession) and that I needed same because I was sick. I again told him he would ultimately learn he had no right to retain my marijuana but that I would like to make a deal with him. He could keep most of my joints but give me some back, and I would (either or both):
a) swear vocally and in writing before he and Const. Wilson and Inch (both were present in the room) my admission that I was in possession of marijuana;
b) make the same admission immediately on record in open court which was about to commence.
Broder maintained that he still wouldn't give me back even one of my joints. His failure to make inquiries (for example with Health Canada or by asking the Crown Attorney - Ms Elizabeth Ives-Ruyter - who had been present and available all morning) as to whether I might possibly be right speaks of an arrogance and false assuredness that, in my submission, is inexcusable in a police officer. Little surprise that Broder also seized my lighter as evidence. As if the ability to smoke is somehow a necessary component of possession. Our tax dollars at work!
Especially at this point, but clearly throughout the morning, Broder's behaviour showed absolutely no recognition of the illness (Multiple Sclerosis) which he clearly knew (or ought to have known) I have. I repeat that my illness and consequent medical marijuana exemption are well known through media coverage in the area, and well known to Sergeant Graham, and recited in the copy of my exemption which Const. Burton examined March 25th. I would be surprised indeed if there wasn't a photocopy of my exemption somewhere in the Killaloe O.P.P. detachment.
I also had written to Sergeant Graham and mentioned my exemption on March 14th, which letter was published in a local newspaper. In that letter I surmised that Graham has made all his officers aware of my exemption, and I have never heard to the contrary. Never was any inquiry as to my health made, and instead of my illness resulting in some compassion and gentility on the part of police, I got the impression that Broder used increased force secure in the knowledge that I was unlikely able to put up much of a fight. In my opinion, police should avoid the use of force as far as possible. They should explore peaceful resolution of situations (even an impending arrest) before using violence. Isn't that why we give them weapons and special powers and partners and the like?
Between the first and second arrests, I asked Broder (as I was sick and needed a joint) if he would return to me even one joint if I showed him a valid exemption. He told me he would not. What possible justification he might advance for this attitude is a mystery to me. It was during this conversation, however, that I believe he learned my exemption papers were inside my diary, the privacy of which he subsequently invaded.
After I signed Broder's appearance notice, he served upon me the accused's (blue) copy of same. My copy is seen on Mr. Hempstead's videotape taken immediately following my first release. This notice required me to appear as set out in paragraph 6) above. Broder clearly knew he was charging me with a summary conviction offence, as demonstrated by his pointing out to me that the notice contained no fingerprint requirement for that very reason. I placed the appearance notice in my shirt pocket and subsequently it was videotaped by Mr. Hempstead between my first and second arrest. It was taken out of my pocket by Broder during the second arrest. This paper was subsequently stolen from me by Const. Broder at the conclusion of my second arrest. He crumpled same up and put it in his pants pocket. Both Wilson and Inch were in the room when Broder did so, but claim they saw nothing. I doubt they will deny hearing me tell Broder (as he put the paper in his pocket) that it (the paper) was my property and I wanted it back. The fact the paper had once previously belonged to his employer gave him no right to take it from me after it became my property. I told Sergeant Graham the same thing by telephone approximately 11:45 a.m. March 27th, and told him I expected O.P.P. to investigate this theft by Broder. I had already made the same request of Inch and Wilson at court but doubt they are investigating. I still want this property back! Just because Broder changes his mind and decides not to charge me doesn't mean my copy of the appearance notice then becomes his (or O.P.P.) property again. I am hoping that Sergeant Graham's powers of persuasion will result in Broder returning my paper to me. I am not holding my breath. In any event, I remember the contents and Mr. Hempstead has the video.
When Const. Broder arrested me for the second time (approximately 10:00 a.m. in the parking lot) he knew or ought to have known the arrest was illegal for all the reasons recited above concerning the first arrest, plus the additional information he had from the first arrest which would confirm that my arrest was not required for any of the reasons enumerated in the Criminal Code. The code permits warrantless arrests for summary conviction offences only in limited circumstances.
The circumstances of the second arrest were virtually identical to the first. Broder hadn't returned any of my joints, but fortunately my girlfriend found some other marijuana in the car and rolled me another joint. I was standing in the parking lot smoking marijuana. I was again accosted by Broder, and again explained to him that I was under no legal obligation to speak with him or show him documents, whether I was smoking marijuana or not. I told him that if he was going to arrest me again, to go ahead but there was no need to be brutal again, as I wasn't going to resist him. He again used far more force than was necessary, as is documented in Mr. Hempstead's videotape, and in spite of Ms Lewis' yelling that "...you don't have to push..." me.
At the time of this second arrest I was standing beside my vehicle, conversing with Ms Lewis and Mr. Hempstead. On the hood of the vehicle was a book which Broder picked up. I immediately yelled at Broder (and yelled repeatedly from then on in the presence of Broder, Wilson, Inch, and Hempstead) that this book was my personal property and my personal diary and was not under any circumstances to be opened or read by police. I know this book was opened by some person while I was in custody, since it was returned with a letter removed from the inside and placed within an elastic band on the outside of the book. Const. Wilson says he didn't look in my book, and I believe him. As it was Const. Broder who returned the book to me (along with other items including my marijuana) at the same time that he told me I was not being charged, I firmly and reasonably believe it was Broder who violated my privacy by reading the contents of my diary contrary to my express instructions, and in spite of the fact the diary had nothing whatsoever to do with my arrest, which arrest was illegal in any event. The letter referred to above was within the book at the time of my arrest and outside upon the book's return. It is dated October 4, 2001, from Health Canada to myself and confirms that my medical marijuana exemption is extended to May 30, 2002. Among other personal writings, this book contains my notes as to my arrest by Const. Burton on February 11, 2002. These are notes I prepared for my defence on Burton's charge. I, of course, have no idea to what extent Broder has read these notes or communicated the contents thereof to Burton or to the Crown Attorney's office in anticipation of my defence of the impaired driving charge. I am not prepared to accept Const. Broder's or Const. Burton's word on these points. Because Broder has invaded my personal diary, contrary to law and contrary to my express instructions, he may have compromised any marginal legitimacy the initial impaired driving charge ever had.
Shortly after each arrest, Broder provided me with an appropriate Bridges warning as to my section 10(b) Charter rights. In each case I told him I wished to call a lawyer immediately from the phone which I knew to be available approximately 40 feet distant in the judge's chambers. Broder said (following the first arrest) that if I wanted a call he'd have to take me to Killaloe O.P.P. detachment. I reminded him I was to appear before the Court soon and didn't want to leave the court building, but as the Judge hadn't arrived, I was certain the clerk would permit me to use the phone in the judge's chambers. I have used this phone many times in the last 20 years, without incident, and told Broder so. He came back a few minutes later to tell me there was a "posted policy" that only currently practicing lawyers were allowed to use the phone. Obviously he hadn't asked the clerk and wasn't prepared to do so. I confronted him and demanded that he ask the clerk. He went away but never gave me a reply and never permitted me to contact counsel.
I was arrested twice and essentially in custody the entire morning, and denied the chance to call a lawyer in spite of my insistence and in spite of the immediate availability of at least one telephone. This constitutes a patent breach of my Charter section 10(b) rights. When I made the identical request (to call a lawyer) immediately following the second arrest and gave him the name of the court clerk (Dave Pinkerton) and assured him Mr. Pinkerton (a personal acquaintance of mine) would likely permit me to use the phone if asked, I received no response whatsoever during approximately 30 minutes in custody. I know the judge had not yet arrived and the phone was not likely in use. I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Pinkerton for his comments, and I will be surprised indeed if he tells me that (contrary to my suspicions) Const. Broder did, in fact, relay my request and it was he (Pinkerton) who wouldn't allow me to use the phone. Of course, I admonish Mr. Pinkerton not to circulate the contents of this letter to any Judge who might be involved in hearing any matter concerning myself.
Perhaps Broder feels my Charter rights are important only if and when he decides to pursue a charge, even though he's already announced to me his intention to do so. Const. Broder gave me the impression, throughout, that any recitation of my rights was intended to simply fulfill his own checklist, and not in any way to apprise me of any rights, and far less to facilitate the exercise of any such rights. I shudder to think of the impact this attitude might have upon other accused persons who have less knowledge of their rights or less inclination to stand up to the likes of Broder.
As I knew
full well that Broder's arrest was illegal, I could, with impunity,
have fought back. I knew, however, that Broder was unwilling to
even consider that I might be right, and resistance would probably
only result in further injury to myself. Subsequent vindication
by the law wouldn't ameliorate those injuries. On balance,
Given all of the above information, no Killaloe O.P.P. officer could possibly, in future, believe he or she has any valid grounds to arrest me for possession or use of marijuana. Obviously, I have to seriously reconsider pacifism as an appropriate response, in the event it should happen again. I am not by nature a violent man, but I will tolerate violation of my rights only so far, and while fighting back may lead to tragic results (likely for myself, given the weapons the O.P.P. carry) there comes a point when nothing less will do.
If any recipient of this letter should disagree with my recitation of the facts, I trust they will let me know as soon as possible.
Yours truly,
Rick Reimer |
|||
