Man found with guns and drugs after calling in overdose has sentence overturned due to Good Samaritan Act | CBC News
[ad_1]
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Justice Robert Leurer was faced with a central question when considering whether to throw out Paul Eric Wilson’s conviction.
“Can the police arrest someone found committing an offence when that person cannot be lawfully charged with it?”
Leurer answer, delivered Wednesday in Regina, was no.
In overturning Wilson’s eight-year sentence, Leurer referred to the six-year-old Good Samaritan Act, which protects people from conviction if they’re charged as a result of seeking assistance for, or having remained at the scene with, someone suffering from a medical emergency.
Court documents say Wilson was driving a car, accompanied by three other people, when he was arrested in Vanscoy, Sask., on Sept. 10, 2020. Leurer notes officers from the Warman RCMP detachment were responding to Wilson’s call reporting a drug overdose.
The officers detained Wilson and two other passengers to conduct a thorough inspection of the vehicle.
“Incidental to the arrest for simple possession, the officers searched the truck and several bags were located therein,” Leurer said.
The officers found modified firearms in the truck, along with what they took to be parts for firearms and some ammunition. In other bags, the officers discovered scales, baggies and needles officers considered evidence of drug trafficking, court documents say.
Wilson, along with two other passengers, were charged with trafficking and gun offences. The person suffering from a suspected fentanyl overdose wasn’t arrested, as they were en route to hospital.
“As it turned out, Mr. Wilson was not charged with possession of a controlled substance under s. 4(1) of the CDSA, despite that being the offence underlying his initial arrest, nor with any other offences under that Act,” Leurer said.
Leurer says the three individuals were then transported to police cells in Saskatoon.
During the appeal hearing for this case in February, the Crown argued that the Good Samaritan Act did not apply because it prevents the police from charging or convicting people, but it doesn’t mean they can’t arrest or search.
In this case, the Crown’s argument relied on Wilson never being charged with possession of a controlled substance.
Leurer ruling said Wilson’s overarching argument was that the search leading to the incriminating items and the subsequent charges was incidental to the first “prohibited” arrest.
Leurer rejected the Crown’s interpretation.
“I agree with the Crown that it was proper for the officers to understand that Mr. Wilson was found committing a crime. However, as I will next discuss, I cannot agree with the Crown’s further submission that this nonetheless justified his arrest,” Leurer said.
Leurer concluded that Wilson’s arrest was unlawful based on evidence suggesting that the police had violated two sections of Wilson’s Charter rights:
“It should have been obvious to the officers that no lawful purpose would be served by Mr. Wilson’s arrest,” he said.
Pierre Hawkins, legal counsel for John Howard Society, led the charge as an intervenor in Wilson’s case. He said this is one of the first cases in the country where the Good Samaritan Act was considered in the overturning of a conviction.
“We see this as the court sending a strong message to both police forces about arresting people in these situations and about training officers in those cases,” Hawkins said.
The Good Samaritan act is meant to incentivize calling for help regardless of circumstance. The person who overdosed when Wilson was arrested was saved by the paramedics who arrived thanks to Wilson’s call.
“It is likely that [Wilson’s friend] is alive only because one of her companions called 911. In her case, the objective of the Good Samaritan Act was achieved,” Leurer said.
Hawkins said this legislation is different from other Acts in that it “relies on trust.”
“Drug users have to trust that the police aren’t going to arrest them at the scene. They have to trust that the legislation is going to protect them, and so this decision from the court is a strong signal to them that they can trust that protection and they should trust that protection,” he said.
[ad_2]
