A “fringe benefit” of the advances being made in the law concerning medical marijuana is the emergence of government-approved experts - other than drug cops - who provide opinion evidence on issues relating to marijuana grow-op cases, says a Toronto criminal lawyer.
Those experts can help criminal
defence lawyers in defending
these cases, said Paul Burstein who
revealed some grow-op case tips
during a workshop at the Criminal
Lawyers’ Association conference.
Burstein told those gathered
that the first area lawyers tackling
these cases should focus on with
experts involves searches.
“Typically there are three or
four pieces of investigative detail
in an information to obtain relating
to a location or suspect that
was not previously known to the
police,” said Burstein. “[It’s] a typical
case where it’s a first-time offender,
first-time location. Three
types of information are detailed;
there’s typically a tip from someone
whether it’s confidential informer
or Crime Stoppers; there’s
hydro usage information . . . and
thirdly, observations of a suspected
grow location, such as an odour of
marijuana being emitted from the
premises, coverings on windows,
those types of things.”
Burstein said tips on a grow-op
case are generally no different than
other search-warrant cases, and
those legal principles apply.
With respect to hydro usage,
Burstein said, “The state of the law
is such that the police don’t need an
expert in order to assess information
they provide and information
pertaining to hydro usage.”
But, he said, if the information
to obtain doesn’t have any details,
it just says hydro usage is excessively
high without providing backup
information or any indication that
opinion was provided with some
proof, “it may be vulnerable.”
Even in those informations to
obtain where the police provide the
backup detail, the monthly records
for a given location for example,
there still may be “some room for
challenge where either they haven’t
provided sufficient comparators,
that is other locations, or the comparators
that they’ve provided are
misleading in some way. So, if they
haven’t provided all the houses that
are nearby on the street that are
similar construction, architecture,
that type of thing, you may have
some room to maneuver there.”
“My suggestion is to the extent
that you have one of those
situations, go out and take some
photos so you can actually show a
judge that there are some material
omissions, that there are houses
that are the same size, same construction,
apparently the same
hydro usage, that weren’t included
and therefore maybe the information
is misleading,” he said.
The third detail he focused on
was the idea of there being an odour
of marijuana. He said that in terms
of the law in Ontario, the “smell of
pot alone will rarely afford reasonable
and probable grounds for a
search, especially if that’s the smell
of burnt marijuana. That is, an officer
must have sufficient expertise
or training in order to accurately
identify the odour and secondly, to
relate it to the ongoing or continued
possession of marijuana.”
Burstein said there’s a recent
case from the Saskatchewan Court
of Appeal called R. v. Janvier that’s
“an excellent review of almost all
the plain smell cases as they’re referred
to in Canada, with a helpful
conclusion. For grow-op cases, the
investigative detail when they refer
to the smell of marijuana it’s almost
always going to be read as the smell
of fresh marijuana, though it’s unlikely
that you’ll make any hay by
saying, ‘Well, the officer in the information
to obtain didn’t specify
fresh or burnt.’ But keep the distinction
in mind nevertheless [that]
there is a distinction in the law between
the odour of burnt versus
the odour of fresh marijuana.”
And that’s the question: Is the
nature or pungency of that aroma
different as to between marijuana
which is still in its vegetative state,
as compared to when it’s been dried
out in preparation for smoking?
“Certainly with cannabis, the
smell of dried marijuana is significantly
different than marijuana is in
its vegetative state. In fact, vegetative
marijuana, if you have it in soil and
dirt, you’re more likely to smell the
dirt than you are in fact the actual
cannabis plants, even if there are a
significant number in an enclosed
space,” said Eric Nash, a qualified
expert witness in marijuana cultivation,
yield, value, and usage.
“Dried marijuana will have
quite a pungent aroma . . . Of
course depending on how it’s packaged
also plays a significant role in
the scent aspect,” said Nash.
On top of that, not all marijuana
plants emit the same level
or degree or pungent smell. There
are numerous strains and hybrids
of the different plants, said Nash.
“There is a wide range of levels of
smell based on the strain, how it’s
grown, when it’s harvested.” Nash
also said the stage of growth affects
the degree of pungency.
Burstein added there is scientific
backup for saying that depending
on what stage of grow the
plants are at, they may or may not
be emitting much if any, of a very
pungent smell. “Think about that
when you have evidence. You’ll
have photographic evidence of
what stage the grow was at when it
was seized. An expert can then take
it back to when an observation, say
a police officer milling about the
outside of the property claiming
to smell a very pungent smell, the
expert would be able to say that’s
simply impossible because a month
ago those plants wouldn’t have been
emitting virtually any smell.
“So there actually is perhaps
an objective basis for challenging
some of those statements in an information
to obtain,” he said.
Meanwhile, growers typically
try and eliminate the odour with
charcoal filtration systems and “if
properly done, you can stand virtually
right outside the exhaust as the
plants are in full flower at 10 weeks
and you can’t smell a thing if it’s a
good charcoal canister,” said Nash.
So, Burstein said, the thing
about challenging the search warrant
is, if an officer “claims he was
able to smell the odour of marijuana
[for example] being emitted
from the basement of a premises, if
the search reveals there was a fairly
decent charcoal filtration system
you could probably argue that the
officer must have gotten right up
to the edge of the filter in order to
make that olfactory observation.”
That may then create argument
that it wasn’t as if the officer
was walking on public property to
make the observation but rather he
had to trespass to make it, he said.
Meanwhile, Nash said those
who distribute the drug to medical
users follow Canada Post marijuana-
shipping guidelines developed
jointly by CP and Health Canada.
The aim is for it to be packaged so
it can’t be smelled so it’s put in Ziplock
bags, again inside a Tupperware
container, inside another plastic
bag, wrapped in clear newsprint,
and then inside a box which is entirely
sealed with packing tape.
Burstein said it’s “interesting”
that this protocol exists to avoid
creating a distinct odour. “I would
suggest that you could make a case
that where in your situation the
officer claims that he smelled the
odour of fresh marijuana being
emitted from the trunk of your
client’s car and it turns out that it
is in a baggie, double bagged in a
garbage bag in a knapsack, which
is in a box, which is in a secured
safe, that Health Canada itself acknowledges
that is just not possible
because its own protocol says that
it will be seized and turned over to
police in a similar situation.”
Turning to sentencing, Burstein
said that at the turn of the millennium,
it was a “relatively sane exercise
in most jurisdictions” and in
the absence of aggravating factors,
conditional terms were available
for pot cases. But, he said, about
five years ago, the courts in Ontario
began to “fall prey to what I’ll
call the marijuana menace. It seems
that conditional sentences for first
offenders in marijuana grow cases,
and at almost any level, are very
rare, if not almost impossible.”
He said an aggravating factor
relied upon is the likelihood of fire.
But Nash noted most of the growers
he’s met with are “quite careful
in terms of the wiring . . . they’ve
got good ventilation. . . . Generally
there isn’t much real risk.”
Perhaps the most significant aggravating
factor is the value of the
grow op. The potential commercial
value is a function of three factors:
the yield, the grower’s personal usage,
and the black market value.
Burstein said experts typically
estimate crop yields based on a
formula where they multiply the
number of plants times about two
to two-and-a-half ounces if not
higher. But Nash said, “It should
be calculated based on reality.”
Burstein noted the marijuana
medical access regulations
“provide a great deal of help on
these cases.”