Cops can now 'take all your stuff'

[Easy Skanking]

Quote:Cops can now 'take all your stuff'
By MINDELLE JACOBS
Last Updated: 21st April 2009, 5:18am

There have been some terrible miscarriages of justice due to proceeds of crime legislation in other countries.

Whether Canada will do better remains to be seen.

To the surprise of at least one legal expert, the Supreme Court of Canada last week unanimously gave the provinces incredible powers to seize assets allegedly connected to crime.

For a country that has gained the reputation, whether deserved or not, of protecting the rights of the accused over the rights of victims, it's quite an about-face.

As one worried reader e-mailed the other day: "This is a terrifying development. If the police even suspect you of a crime, they can take all your stuff. They don't have to prove it."

Is he right? "Yes and no," says University of Manitoba law professor Michelle Gallant. The cops can take your car, for instance, if they think you're using it to sell drugs.

But the police have to persuade a judge that, on a balance of probabilities, the vehicle is connected to crime. And that's much easier to show than providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a crime.

In other words, if the police want your car, house, money or any other assets, they can get away with it without even arresting you as long as they convince a judge something doesn't smell right. No conviction necessary.

"It's kind of scary," says Gallant, an expert in proceeds of crime, who never thought Canada would embrace such wide-ranging legislation.

While the goal -- going after assets associated with crimes like drug trafficking -- is laudatory, it's an awful lot of leeway to give the government, she says.

At least Britain brought in a more narrowly defined law, limiting proceeds of crime proceedings to assets over 10,000 pounds ($18,000 Canadian).

"It does strike me as quite radical," says Gallant, of the top court ruling. "Now the state can sue anybody -- any asset -- and if it proves on a balance of probabilities that it's connected to crime, it can take it. That's quite an extraordinary power."

She would have been more comfortable with more restrictive proceeds of crime laws limited to assets over $100,000 and involving only serious crimes such as drug trafficking.

In the U.S., she adds, there have been shocking abuses of the system. She cites the case of a poor woman who lost her house because her son had been dealing drugs out of the place. And a lot of marginalized people have no control over what goes on around them.

Listen up, folks. Most of the provinces have similar provisions in their proceeds of crime legislation. If your kid is selling drugs out of your car, and you don't know it, the state could still seize the vehicle as an instrument of crime.

Imagine another scenario. A new immigrant flying back to his native country with a thick wad of cash for his relatives. "We use banks. They use envelopes," Gallant says of certain immigrant groups.

PANDORA'S BOX

That's the kind of money the government might decide, on a balance of probabilities, is connected to crime.

The optimistic view is the provinces examined the U.S. and European proceeds of crime laws and got rid of "the worst bits," says Gallant.

On the other hand, we may have unleashed a Pandora's Box of potential abuses. We'll just have to keep our fingers crossed that Canadian judges have a finely honed sense of fairness.

"I'm ambivalent," Gallant says of the Supreme Court decision. "I'm not sure if I have a lot of faith in our proceeds of crime units (and) government's ability to apply these laws."

MINDY.JACOBS@SUNMEDIA.CA

[yeti]

This is the first I've heard of this. WTF??

[Easy Skanking]

Quote:This is the first I've heard of this. WTF??

No doubt as it is not a popular decision.

Here's a related article from a few days earlier:

Quote:Top court upholds provincial right to seize property

Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service Published: Friday, April 17, 2009

A unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision Friday upholds provincial laws that permit police to confiscate goods they suspect they suspect are ill-gotten, even if they do not have enough evidence to lay charges.Geoff RobinsA unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision Friday upholds provincial laws that permit police to confiscate goods they suspect they suspect are ill-gotten, even if they do not have enough evidence to ...

OTTAWA -- Provincial governments were spared the prospect of returning millions of dollars in seized property when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that the Crown has the power to confiscate the proceeds of crime.

The unanimous decision preserves provincial laws adopted across Canada in recent years permitting governments to attempt to take the profit out of crime and to compensate victims by ordering the forfeiture of ill-gotten goods.

The ruling rejected an Ontario man's argument that the province's Civil Remedies Act is unconstitutional because it treads on federal jurisdiction over criminal law.

"Each level of government bears a portion of the costs of criminality and each level of government, therefore, has an interest in its suppression," Justice Ian Binnie wrote in the 7-0 decision.

Robin Chatterjee, a former student at Carleton University in Ottawa, was en route to his home in Thornhill, Ont., in March, 2003, when police pulled him over because his car was missing a front licence plate.

They discovered he was breaching a court order to live in Ottawa and upon searching his car, found a light ballast, one light socket and an exhaust fan -- items commonly used for marijuana grow operations. He also had $29,000 cash.

Police did not charge the young man because they said they did not have enough evidence.

Ontario's Civil Remedies Act, however, does not require a criminal conviction, so the province moved in and seized the goods after receiving judicial approval. A judge can give permission based on a balance of probabilitiesthat the goods were proceeds of crime, a standard that is not as high as the criminal test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia all have forfeiture laws, according to documents filed in the Supreme Court.

Chatterjee's lawyer, James Diamond, predicted a spike in forfeitures following the Supreme Court's endorsement. Also, provinces that have put their efforts on hold pending the ruling can now proceed, he said.

"I certainly expect that all the provinces will step up their efforts," said Mr. Diamond.

Seven provinces joined the court challenge to side with Ontario in its successful argument that seizing proceeds of crime falls under provincial power over property and civil rights, rather than federal jurisdiction to craft criminal law.

"Forfeiture is the transfer of property from the owner to the Crown," wrote Justice Binnie. "Forfeiture does not result in the conviction of anybody for any offence."

As of August, 2007, Ontario had seized $15-million in property, according to court records.

Friday's Supreme Court decision upholds two previous rulings in the lower courts, including the Ontario Court of Appeal, which ruled in May, 2007, that the criminal law is not a "watertight compartment" that precludes provincial involvement.

The government also can freeze assets, as it did in January, in a case involving an Ottawa crack house.

British Columbia's Civil Forfeiture Office reported last August that it had seized $5.6-million in assets, mainly from illicit drug cases, since its law took effect in 2006.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which intervened in the appeal on Chatterjee's behalf, had warned the Supreme Court to be cautious of legislation "that permits the provinces to exercise coercive state powers under the guise of co-operative federalism."