Drug trial focuses on admissibility of search evidence
By Jeremy Appel on September 22, 2018.
jappel@medicinehatnews.com @MHNJeremyAppel The second trial day for Aaron Hotchen’s single charge of possession for the purposes of trafficking methamphetamine hinged on the admissibility of evidence gathered from police surveillance of the accused. Defence lawyer Marc Crarer brought forth a Charter application Friday at Medicine Hat Provincial Court as part of the trial’s voir dire, which determines the permissibility of evidence and witnesses. Crarer said the police didn’t have “reasonable and probable grounds” to search the truck Hotchen was in and seize a water bottle filled with methamphetamine, as the grounds of Hotchen’s arrest were based on “subjective beliefs.” At the end of Thursday’s day-long proceeding, Medicine Hat Police Service special enforcement Sgt. Kirt Murray testified that Hotchen’s name appeared in 75 confidential source debrief reports. If the burden of reasonable and probable cause was based solely on confidential sources, Hotchen could be arrested at any time, Crarer argued Friday. Many of the confidential reports referred to Hotchen as a drug addict. Based on this evidence, the basis for a search “it not overly remarkable,” said Crarer. With regards to a surveilled incident where the accused was seen entering another person’s vehicle outside a Calgary Chili’s restaurant for three minutes, which was part of the basis for Hotchen’s arrest, Crarer said he could have been simply smoking meth. During cross-examination Thursday, Crarer asked numerous witnesses if they saw smoke come out of the vehicle, but none could recall either way. The evidence is “somewhat chaotic,” he said during his voir dire submission. The arrest was also based on police recovering a plastic bag with meth residue on it, which the lawyer contended could be seen as a mere disposal of personal drugs. Since the vehicle belonged to the original target of surveillance, Alan Dressel, it’s plausible the meth found inside it belonged to him, Crarer said. If the arrest was unlawful, then so was the warrantless search and seizure. The Crown prosecutor said there were “clearly grounds to arrest here.” Although many of the confidential sources emphasized Hotchen being a drug addict, they all agreed he was trafficking. Just because there’s other plausible explanations — that Hotchen had just been using meth — doesn’t mean there’s no probable cause. “Reasonable probable grounds isn’t even civil burden of proof,” said the Crown. Responding directly to Crarer’s argument that the arrest was based on “subjective beliefs,” the Crown contended that the test for reasonable plausibility is based on “subjective grounds.” A search incidental to an arrest doesn’t require a warrant, he added. There’s also a reduced expectation of privacy for an individual driving someone else’s vehicle on a highway, the Crown said. “I’ll put aside the absurdity of driving to Calgary … to smoke meth for three minutes,” he said. Judge Sylvia Lori Oishi will return with her judgment on the evidence’s admissibility on Oct. 31. 24
-23
