420 Magazine Background

Warrant Challenge Delays Marijuana Activist's Trial

PFlynn

New Member
The trial of a marijuana-legalization activist known as Daweedking was adjourned Tuesday to give a police officer time to find notes indicating the reliability of his informants. The lawyer for Fred Pritchard and his wife Renee Pritchard - charged with cultivating marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana - is making a constitutional challenge of the search warrant.

Frank Miller says the information in the warrant suggested 50 to 80 marijuana plants would be found, when only 26 plants were uncovered in a raid on the Pritchards' home May 6, 2005.

Fred Pritchard used the moniker Daweedking while supplying pot through his now defunct Marijuana Compassion Club of Windsor.

Miller is seeking proof of the informants' accuracy, implying police can allege whatever they want in search warrants if they don't have to back up their claims in court.

"We want to look at the validity of the warrant," Miller said.

Windsor police Const. Mauro Hernandez did not answer specific questions regarding his informants to avoid identifying them. He said one of the informants provided information for a total of five "successful" search warrants, while the other provided three.

Though Hernandez said the two informants proved reliable, he said that without checking his notes he could not know if the drugs found always closely matched what the sources predicted.

Hernandez noted that the raid on the Pritchards' home was successful, turning up 26 marijuana plants, equipment, some currency, and a Queensmen motorcycle club vest.

Assistant Crown attorney Nicole Lamphier said police often don't keep files on informants and that requiring them to provide proof for every search warrant would be difficult.

"I absolutely refuse to believe that there is not some way that information can be accessed," Rogin said.


Source: Windsor Star (CN ON)
Copyright: 2008 The Windsor Star
Contact: letters@thestar.canwest.com
Website: canada.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boss

Well-Known Member
It's about time the topic of "informants" came up. When they say they have to break in your home to find X, and they find Y, I think the search warrant should be void and all charges dropped. Maybe even compensation for the people you invaded. That may stop them from busting down doors unless they are positive they will get what they are looking for.

If it cost's a city 2 million in fines and restitution, they will ensure their info in accurate before invading our privacy.
 

MsRedEye

420 Staff
Informants are usually people who have broken the law themselves and are just trying to save their own ass. Not only are they unable to abide by the law, they have the added character flaw of being a snitch. By virtue of this, they have already established dishonesty. It has always amazed me that when they turn into "informants" their word automatically turns into gospel and our civil rights take a beating in the process.

Good story PFlynn. I'll be interested to see how this one turns out.

:51: Peace
 
Top Bottom