R. v. Fasogiannis Date:, 2014 BCPC 107

Citation: R. v. Fasogiannis Date: 20140528 2014 BCPC 0107 File No: 90750-1 Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. ALEXANDER DEMETRIOS FASOGIANNIS ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE BULLER BENNETT Counsel for the Crown: A. Whitlam Counsel for the Accused: J. Dunne Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: May 13th & 14th, 2014 Date of Judgment: May 28, 2014 [1] THE COURT: This is my ruling on the admissibility of evidence seized by the police from the vehicle that Mr. Fasogianniswas driving on April 3rd, 2013. [2] As a result of the illegal arrest and search as I have already found, police officers seized money from Mr. Fasogiannis whenthey searched him, and they seized drugs and related paraphernalia from the back seat of the vehicle that Mr.

Fasogiannis was driving. [3] Defence says that these Charter breaches were serious and the evidence ought to be excluded. [4] Crown says that although there were Charter breaches, the seriousness of the breaches, the minimal impact onMr. Fasogiannis' Charter interests and the strong societal interest in having drug cases tried on their merits weighs in favour ofadmission. Of course, the leading case is R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 , [2009] S.C.J. No. 32. [5] There are three areas for the judge to consider in determining admissibility. [6] The first of course is the serious of the Charter-infringing conduct.

In this particular matter in my view the breaches wereserious. The breaches affected not only Mr. Fasogiannis' liberty but security of his person. [7] Turning now to the second step, the impact of the breaches on the Charter-protected interests of the accused, and as I havealready stated, the Charter breaches had an impact on Mr. Fasogiannis' liberty. [8] He was unlawfully arrested, taken to police cells later and ultimately released. There was a search of the vehicle he wasdriving; it was a rental. Even though it was a rental, there is some privacy interest in that vehicle.

I am well aware that other courts havefound that a search of a motor vehicle is less intrusive than a personal search, however it is a search nonetheless in an area where there issome privacy interest. In my view, there was a great impact on Mr.

Fasogiannis' Charter-protected interests. [9] Turning now to society's interest in adjudication on the merits, of course there is always a strong societal interest inadjudication of drug cases in particular on their merits. [10] In this case, however, there are what I would call some serious flaws, even disregarding what other courts have said, I amreferring to the Chong, supra, decision and the Becker, supra, decision as well as the Joseph, supra, decision.

Even disregarding whatwas said in other cases, the actions of Constable Parsons in my view and to use the vernacular “reek” of bad faith. [11] When Constable Parsons became a member of the RCMP he swore an oath to uphold the laws of Canada. That includes theCharter. He may have forgotten that oath that he swore. [12] There is a history between Constable Parsons and Mr. Fasogiannis where in accepting Mr. Fasogiannis' evidence he wasarrested, searched, as well as his vehicle being searched. Nothing came of that. [13] Further, Constable Parsons was reckless in my view in how he kept notes of his dealings with Mr.

Fasogiannis, not only in thenotes that he did keep, but the notes that he did not make. [14] Further, his evidence was exaggerated and self-serving. [15] In my view, the whole case amounts to a blatant disregard for Mr. Fasogiannis' Charter rights which Constable Parsons sworeto uphold. These factors in my view outweigh the strong societal interest in an adjudication on the merits. [16] Constable Parsons broke the law. Therefore, the admission of the exhibits, in my view, would bring the administration ofjustice into disrepute.

Therefore, they are excluded from evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter. (ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)