Judge throws out evidence in drug case after man’s ‘humiliating’ strip search by Winnipeg police | 24CA News

A Manitoba Court of King’s Bench Justice tossed proof in a drug possession case after ruling a Winnipeg police officer violated a person’s constitution rights by conducting a “humiliating and invasive” strip search in the course of the man’s arrest final yr.

Kyle McKenzie was stripped and searched at police headquarters after an officer arrested him for drug possession in May 2021, Court of King’s Bench Justice Jeffrey Harris wrote in his ruling, delivered Dec. 9.

Two officers advised court docket that in a routine patrol on May 7, police pulled over a taxi McKenzie was using in after they noticed he was not carrying a seatbelt. 

They testified that after they went to the passenger facet of the automobile, they noticed McKenzie had a baggie with methamphetamine in his hand.

When he was arrested, police patted him down and searched his bag, the place they discovered medication, $280 in money, drug paraphernalia and a knife, court docket heard.

Harris dominated that search was cheap. However, whereas later conducting a strip search in a non-public room, the officer obtained McKenzie to take away his underwear, then made him raise his scrotum and unfold the cheeks of his buttocks, based on the officer’s testimony.

Nothing was discovered throughout that search.

“There was no compelling reason to conduct this humiliating and invasive search,” Justice Harris wrote.

“The strip search was a serious invasion of Mr. McKenzie’s privacy and his human dignity.”

The arresting officer testified a strip search is “always conducted” if police consider one thing is hid on the suspect’s physique.

Justice Harris mentioned that reasoning was “egregious,” given a 2001 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that mentioned routine strip searches violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms part that protects towards unreasonable search and seizure.

Based on that, Harris dominated the proof seized from McKenzie in the course of the arrest is not going to be admissible in his upcoming trial, the place McKenzie faces costs of possession for the aim of trafficking, possession of a weapon, and possession of property obtained by crime.

Ruling a part of voir dire 

Justice Harris’s ruling was a part of a voir dire held forward of McKenzie’s trial. 

A voir dire is a form of trial inside a trial — a separate listening to to decide whether or not proof is admissible in court docket.

Harris mentioned in his ruling final week there may be “no doubt that society has a keen interest in the prosecution of alleged drug traffickers,” however that the general public ought to anticipate the police to “cease practices that the courts determine are unconstitutional.”

During the voir dire, McKenzie disputed the officers’ testimony claiming he was holding methamphetamine when his taxi was pulled over, testifying he would have had ample time to cover the medication earlier than police obtained to his facet of the automobile.

Justice Harris additionally wrote that he shared McKenzie’s issues that police didn’t seize the video proof from the taxi, regardless of with the ability to, and that one of many arresting officers did not make notes throughout McKenzie’s arrest. 

“Having the benefit of video could have assisted the court in its fact-finding,” Harris’s choice mentioned. “The best evidence should always be put before the court.”

McKenzie’s matter stays earlier than the courts, and his subsequent look can be in January.

Lawyer hopes police will change search practices

Jonathan Pinx, McKenzie’s lawyer, mentioned usually after key proof is excluded from a trial, the Crown will ask the courts to acquit on all costs.

“My client is obviously very happy about the decision. This was a long time coming,” he advised 24CA News on Tuesday.

Pinx mentioned he hopes the ruling will affect when Winnipeg police conduct strip searches. 

“The hope is that … the police would change their practices in the future and not just strip search anyone who was accused of committing a certain type of crime,” he mentioned.

“The reason people should care about these rulings, and any rulings involving the charter, is it’s not just about the times that people get caught.… The whole reason for the charter is to protect everyone, no matter what crime they’re accused of.”

A request for remark from the Winnipeg Police Service was not returned on the time of publication.