[27] The respondent’s position is that in the circumstances of this case, which involved a location being used for the active trafficking of narcotics, it was not necessary for the police to have previously identified all the persons involved in the drug trafficking activities to ground a reasonable belief that those persons inside the premises were involved. In the respondent’s submission, this case is distinguishable from those situations where the police execute a search warrant at the residence of a named person and an unknown visitor is found in the residence.
[28] On the evidence in this case, I am of the view that the information the police had prior to the search of the appellant would have provided reasonable grounds upon which to arrest the appellant at the time the police entered the premises.
[29] Based on the surveillance evidence and the drug purchase by Constable Robbins, it was clear that there was a brisk drug trafficking operation being conducted from the upper rear suite at 334 East Hastings Street immediately before the police executed the search warrant on 12 August 1999.
[30] From the buy made by Constable Robbins and the number of people Detective Deagua observed quickly going into and coming out the premises, it would be reasonable to infer that those purchasing drugs were not going into the suite itself and would not likely be found in it.
[31] That drug dealing and drug use are common in the area in which the searched premises are located is a notorious fact.
[32] Taking into account the information the police had to which I have already referred and the nature of the area in which the premises was located, it would also be reasonable to infer that the premises were probably not being used as a residence but as a place from which those in the premises were able to conduct a drug dealing business.
[33] In the circumstances I have just described, I am of the opinion that the police did have reasonable grounds to arrest the appellant, and could therefore search him as an incident of his lawful arrest. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appellant’s first ground of appeal.
[34] The appellant’s second ground of appeal is that the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence.
[35] During the search of the premises, the police found large quantities of cocaine, heroin and cannabis resin in a locked room described as the north east bedroom. Paraphernalia related to the preparation of controlled substances for resale were found in the kitchen. These included a coffee grinder and a microwave plate apparently covered with white powder, scales, a booklet containing figures apparently pertaining to drug sales, and significant quantities of baking soda, a common cutting agent.
[36] In the search of the appellant, the police seized the following items: a key to the front door of the suite at 334 East Hastings Street, $2840 in cash from his front pocket including the $140 “buy money” used by Constable Robbins, cash in his wallet of $465, and a book containing only handwritten figures and calculations.
[37] As there was ample circumstantial evidence from which the trial judge could conclude to the requisite criminal standard that the appellant was in possession of the controlled substances for the purposes of trafficking, I would dismiss this ground as well.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire