Winnipeg police intentionally damaged medical marijuana grow-op equipment, judge rules Social Sharing

gb123

Well-Known Member
WPS must pay $3,514.30 to cover cost of replacing Patrick Walker's equipment:hump::hug::clap::idea::lol::grin:bongsmilie


The Winnipeg Police Service must pay a man more than $3,500 for purposely damaging equipment used to grow weed in his home, ruled a judge from the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.

Patrick Walker, the claimant, was charged with producing cannabis marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, after the WPS executed a search warrant of his house in August 2016.

After the sentencing hearing, all of Walker's growing equipment seized by police was ordered to be returned to him. But most of it was damaged to the point where it was useless.

"It is obvious from the photographs [taken by Walker] that much of the damage was intentional," said Justice Douglas Abra in his decision, adding, however, that he did not believe the actions to be malicious.

Equipment is confiscated whenever someone pleads or is found guilty of producing marijuana. A level of care is needed when seizing the equipment, as it now becomes evidence, the judge explains.

"By intentionally damaging [Walker's] equipment, the members of WPS were effectively in breach of trust," Abra said.

"In treating the equipment … in the manner that they did, the members of WPS believed that the equipment was never going to be returned to the claimant."

The WPS now must pay $3,514.30 in damages to Walker, to cover the cost of replacing his equipment.
Walker made no 'attempt to hide' grow op


Walker was growing weed out of his residence on Bowman Avenue near the Chalmers area. He had a medical marijuana license that authorized him to do so, but it expired March 7, 2014 and had not been renewed, according to the court document.

Walker didn't renew his license because he believed he was eligible to grow, based on an injunction granted by the Federal Court on March 21, 2014, which allowed individuals authorized to grow weed under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations to continue doing so.

This was not the case, and in March 2014 police applied for a search warrant of Walker's home.

Reasons for the warrant cited by police include "numerous" checks with Health Canada about the status of Walker's medical marijuana license, records from Manitoba Hydro saying the house consumed a high amount of power, reports from WPS officers dating back to 2007 saying weed was being grown at the home, and that officers "had no difficulty in smelling marijuana" when passing by there.



Walker believed he did not have to renew his medical marijuana license, after the Federal Court granted an injunction regarding the growth of personal medical marijuana. (Steven Senne/Associated Press)

"Clearly the claimant was not making any attempt to hide the marijuana grow operation," Abra said.

Police executed the search warrant on Aug. 3, 2016 and at least five police officers were involved, according to the court document.

When dismantling the operation, police cut or sliced any electrical wires plugged into the walls, citing safety.

"Any equipment with electrical cords would be useless because the cords had been sliced into numerous pieces," Abra said, noting that the cords could have been unplugged instead.

"If the members of WPS were still concerned about safety, one cut of the plug at the receptacle and/or a cut at or near the piece of equipment itself would have been sufficient. The balance of the various cords should have remained intact."

Among the seized equipment were also large slabs of sheet metal that used to be flat; police "grossly bent" the sheets to fit them into a transport vehicle, the court document said.

"The large sheets of metal did not have to be bent and cut the manner that they were. It rendered them useless," the judge said.

"Constable [S. R.] Worden testified that the sheets of metal were too large for the transport truck. If indeed that was the situation, they should have arranged for a larger truck."
 

oopsididit

Well-Known Member
So did this guy get off or what? It really is not clear to me reading this article what actually happened to the charges brought against him.
 

AquaTerra

Well-Known Member
The Green Team here on the coast use to do that in the min 2000's. Come in, bust you, take the plants, bash the equipment and leave. Guy is left sanding there wondering what happened but he's not gonna ague with them about why they didn't arrest or charge him as they pack up and leave lol
 

cannadan

Well-Known Member
Has me wondering if he was a left out or had legal paperwork,which should have allowed him to keep growing under the injunction.
Funny cause when the police were last here,I explained to them I was growing under the injunction and that everyones paperwork expired back in 2014.
They accepted that without question.
 

greg nr

Well-Known Member
Has me wondering if he was a left out or had legal paperwork,which should have allowed him to keep growing under the injunction.
Funny cause when the police were last here,I explained to them I was growing under the injunction and that everyones paperwork expired back in 2014.
They accepted that without question.
I smelled the same rat. At least down here, if you were guilty of a crime a judge wouldn't award damages for assholery. The only way you would have a claim is if they made an unconstitutional search and seizure.

The article is short on specifics. No surprise there.

But the real question is: what law did he violate by possessing sheet metal? By itself, it is neither fish nor fowl. It's just construct material, like drywall. Why seize drywall as evidence?
 

spek9

Well-Known Member
what law did he violate by possessing sheet metal?
He didn't break any laws by having the sheet metal. It's safe to assume that the sheet metal was being used in what the police claim was an illegal grow operation. If it was used for light reflection, it's part of the grow equipment much like the lights.

I'm not condoning at all what happened there, I'm just pointing out the likely situation.
 

OLD MOTHER SATIVA

Well-Known Member
the injunction only stands if your documants were MMAR before the ALLARD injunction was placed

if it was ACMPR then it was post Injunction and not valid

BUT..if he has a within one year drs rec for cannabis then he is still legal..

HC is still famous for jerking people around and dealying the documents from HC..

but if you have a drs rec within the last year you are still ok
 
Top