Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2011 SKPC 121

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKPC 121 Date: July 26, 2011 Information: 24429147 (Bradley Stonestand) & 24429146 (Shirley Stonestand) Location: Melfort _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Bradley Stonestand and Shirley Stonestand Appearing: Trent Forsyth For the Crown Brenda Dahlby for Shirley Stonestand For the Accused James Streeton for Bradley Stonestand For the Accused DECISION ON VOIR DIRE L.

DYCK , J [ 1 ] Bradley Stonestand and Shirley Stonestand are each charged with possession of cannabis marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, trafficking in cannabis marihuana, and possession of proceeds of property. The evidence against them arises as a result of a search which took place on October 6, 2010, pursuant to a search warrant issued that same date. Both have entered not guilty pleas.

[2] Prior to the trial commencing, Bradley Stonestand brought an application for an order quashing the search warrant, and anorder pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that all evidence seized under the search warrant, as well as a statementprovided by Mr. Stonestand as result of the search, be excluded from evidence. [3] The search warrant relates to Bradley Stonestand. Shirley Stonestand has applied for standing to argue the validity of thesearch warrant. For the purposes of this application, Ms.

Stonestand has admitted that she was a resident of the house identified in thesearch warrant and that on the date in question she was legally married to Bradley Stonestand. The Crown did not oppose the applicationand an order was made allowing Ms. Stonestand standing in these proceedings. Ms. Stonestand seeks the same orders as Mr. Stonestandwith respect to the validity of the warrant and the exclusion of evidence from the search, as well as an exclusion of a statement providedby her as a result of the search. [4] A voir dire was entered into for the purpose of examining the validity of the search warrant.

Material filed on the voir direconsisted of: Exhibit P1, an edited copy of the Information to Obtain a Search Warrant (ITO) dated October 6, 2010, a copy of which isattached as an Appendix to this decision; Exhibit P2, a copy of the search warrant and sealing order, dated October 6, 2010; Exhibit P3,the Report to Justice prepared after the search; and Exhibit P4, an expert report prepared by a member of the Saskatoon Integrated DrugUnit regarding the evidence found during the search.

LAW AND ANALYSIS [5] Bradley and Shirley Stonestand allege that there are insufficient grounds in the ITO to establish that an offence had beencommitted or that there was evidence to be found at the place of the search, and that, as a result, the search warrant should not have beenissued. They argue that without the warrant, this was a warrantless search in clear violation of their rights under s. 8 of the Charter. They ask for exclusion of evidence at trial as a remedy. The applicants bear the burden of establishing the claimed infringement on abalance of probabilities.

The Crown submits the ITO provides reasonable grounds to allow the search warrant to have been issued bythe Justice of the Peace and therefore there is no Charter breach. [6] Subsection 11(1)(

a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provides that if a justice is satisfied on reasonable groundsthat a controlled substance is in a place, he may issue a warrant to search the place for any such controlled substance. [7] In R. v. Garofoli, (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421, at paragraph 56, Justice Sopinka stated the standard ofreview that was to take place in circumstances such as this: The reviewing judge does not substitute his or her view for that of the authorizing judge.

If, based on the record which was before theauthorizing judge as amplified on the review, the reviewing judge concludes that the authorizing judge could have granted theauthorization, then he or she should not interfere. [8] The ITO contained information from several confidential sources (A, B, C, D, and E), the observations of an RCMP officerwho had been at the Stonestand residence and the results of investigative inquiries.

For ease of reference, I refer to all confidentialinformant sources as male. [9] As noted in the attached ITO, Source “A” provided information to an RCMP officer on March 31, 2010, as described inparagraph 2.1; on May 23, 2010, as described in paragraph 2.3; on June 7, 2010, as described in paragraph 2.4; and on August 24, 2010,as described in paragraph 2.6.

Source “A” had not provided information to the police previously and his motivation was civicmindedness and betterment of the community. [10] With respect to the information provided on March 31, 2010, there is a substantial amount of detail provided with respect towho is selling the drugs (“Brad and Shirley Stonestand”), where the alleged drug sales were taking place (“#7 New York Road, JamesSmith First Nation”), when the alleged drug sales were taking place (“traffic is usually busy after pay days on the reserve, which is the 1st , 10th and 20th of each month”), who is buying drugs (“Travis Stonestand”), and the vehicles registered to Shirley Stonestand (“a red2003 four door Saturn, with Saskatchewan licence plate number 441 HEK and a grey 2001 GMC Jimmy”).

[ 11 ] The information provided on May 23, 2010, also provides details about where Brad Stonestand gets his drugs (“from a male in Weldon”), how much the drugs are sold for (“halves for ten dollars and twenty dollars for a gram”), where the drugs are kept (“in the first bedroom to the right of the front door, in a tin can”) and other items in the home (“a scale and lots of cash in the bedroom”). [ 12 ] The information provided on June 7, 2010, relates to very specific information (“in June of 2010, a Caucasian male, was seen delivering a burgundy duffle bag with black straps containing cannabis marihuana to Brad Stonestand’s residence located at #7 New York Road”) and repeats the information regarding the location (“from his residence”) and timing of the drug sales (“on welfare pay days”). [ 13 ] Finally, with respect to Source “A”, the information provided on August 24, 2010, indicates when drugs were delivered (“On August __, 2010, Brad Stonestand received a delivery of cannabis marihuana to his residence at #7 New York Road”), observations made (“Brad Stonestand was seen selling half an ounce of cannabis marihuana”), where the drugs are kept (“in the room of his house that is the first on the right”) and other items in the home (“a scale in the house that he uses to weigh the cannabis marihuana”). [ 14 ] Source “B” provided information to an RCMP officer on April 24, 2010, as described in paragraph 2.2.

Source “B” had not provided information to the police in the past and their motivation was civic mindedness. The information provided gave detail about when there was a lot of foot traffic at Brad Stonestand’s residence (“the 10 th , 20 th and the end of each month”). [ 15 ] Source “C” provided information to an RCMP officer on August 8, 2010, as described in paragraph 2.5.

The motivation of Source “C” was judicial consideration. [ 16 ] The information provided by Source “C” was very detailed with respect to the nature of the drug being sold and for how much (“sells marihuana for $300 an ounce, $125 for a half ounce, $20 for a gram and $10 for a half gram”), where the marihuana is kept (“in his basement and in a dresser” and “in his bedroom”), and when the marihuana is brought in (“at the end of the month and on the 20 th of each month” and “he loads up before welfare (meaning loading up with marihuana)”). [ 17 ] Source “D” provided information to an RCMP officer on September 2, 2010, as described in paragraph 2.7.

The motivation of Source “D” was financial and the betterment of the community. [ 18 ] The information provided by Source “D” was where the drug dealing was taking place (“Brad Stonestand sells cannabis marihuana from his residence at #7 New York Road”), when the drug dealing took place (“on welfare days which is usually the 10 th of each month”) and the nature of the traffic (“the volume of traffic is very high at Brad Stonestand’s residence”). [ 19 ] Source “E” provided information to an RCMP officer as described in paragraph 2.10.

The motivation of Source “E” was civic mindedness. [ 20 ] The information provided by Source “E” was specific, indicating where the drugs were being sold out of (“Brad Stonestand is selling cannabis marihuana out of a holiday trailer that is parked in his yard”), where the drugs are purchased (“Brad buys his drugs in Prince Albert”), who is sold to (“Brad sells to Steve (last name unknown). Steve buys big portions and sells cannabis marihuana for Brad”), and where the drugs are kept (“Brad keeps his drugs in his home in his bedroom in a tobacco tin”). [ 21 ] The information provided by Cst.

Kent Scott, as noted at paragraph 2.12, is compelling. Cst. Scott is a member of the Melfort RCMP. At 8:00 p.m. on October 5, 2010, Cst. Scott went to the Brad Stonestand residence at #7 New York Road to serve a subpoena. He knocked on the door of the residence and a male voice said “Come in”. Cst. Scott opened the door and stepped into the house. As indicated in the ITO, “Immediately upon entrance he could smell a strong odor of raw Cannabis Marihuana coming from inside the residence... Brad Stonestand quickly came to the door and started to close the door quickly forcing him outside the house.

Brad Stonestand seemed very nervous and did not want him inside the residence.”

[ 22 ] The final pieces of information in the ITO relate to police investigation. On October 5, 2010, a check was done of the SGI database, confirming that Shirley Stonestand had a 2001 GMC Jimmy S series truck associated to her and also a 2003 Saturn car, Saskatchewan licence plate number 441 HEK associated to her. The Police Reporting and Occurrence System police database confirmed that Bradley and Shirley Stonestand lived at #7 New York Road, James Smith First Nation.

On September 7, 2010, an RCMP officer initiated a traffic stop of a 2001 GMC Jimmy that Brad Stonestand was driving. [ 23 ] The applicants argue that there is insufficient information about the sources to ensure their credibility noting that none of the sources have proven reliable in the past, there is no indication if the sources have a criminal record for dishonesty, or if any of the information came to the sources as a result of personal observation.

In addition, there is no indication of where they live or whether they might be drug users. [ 24 ] A concern is raised about the motivation of Source “C”, whose motive was for judicial consideration and Source “D”, whose motive was financial. [ 25 ] As for the observations of Cst.

Scott, the applicants note that there is no information about his experience as an officer or about any training that he may have taken in the area of drug enforcement. [ 26 ] The applicants submit that the information from the five sources is nothing more than rumour and that providing rumour five times does not help strengthen the reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant. [ 27 ] The Crown notes that the various sources are not akin to “anonymous” sources: four of the sources provided information due to “civic mindedness” or “betterment of the community”, while Source “B” was spoken to on James Smith First Nation.

From this, it can be inferred that these are individuals that have ties to the James Smith First Nation. [ 28 ] The Crown submits that there is substantial detail in the information provided by the various sources, that the sources are corroborative of each other and that the other investigation undertaken is corroborative of the information from the sources. [ 29 ] Relying on R. v. Sewell , 2003 SKCA 52 , the Crown argues that the smell of raw marihuana alone, as described by Cst. Scott, is sufficient to establish the reasonable and probable grounds for the search.

At paragraph 40 of Sewell , Chief Justice Bayda found that “the officer, after experiencing “a very strong smell of marihuana, raw marihuana, in the back of the vehicle”... had reasonable and probable grounds to continue the search in question”. [ 30 ] With respect to the use of confidential source information in a search warrant, in R.v. Hopkins , 2005 SKCA 88 , Judge Jackson noted the following at paragraphs 14-16: 14. After referring to R. v. Debot and R. v. Greffe , Sopinka J., speaking for the majority in Garofoli , summarized the law pertaining to testing the reliability of an informer’s evidence: (

i) Hearsay statements of an informant can provide reasonable and probable grounds to justify a search. However, evidence of a tip from an informer, by itself, is insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds. (ii) The reliability of a tip is to be assessed by recourse to “the totality of the circumstances”. There is no formulaic test as to what this entails. Rather, the court must look to a variety of factors including: (

a) the degree of detail in the “tip”; (

b) the informer’s source of knowledge; (

c) indicia of the informer’s reliability such as past performance or confirmation from other investigative sources. (iii) The results of the search cannot, ex post facto , provide evidence of reliability of the information. 15. Thus, the “totality of the circumstances” must be considered. Weaknesses in one area can be offset by strengths in another. The

issue is whether having regard for the totality of the information sworn to by the officer, the information is compelling, credible andcorroborated (see Debot and Plant). 16. In Debot, the Court considered a number of factors with respect to whether the information provided by the informant wascompelling, credible and corroborated.

An informant’s tip may be found more compelling and credible according to the degree of detailand its specificity, such as the names of the participants in the offence; the location of the event; the time of day when the event was totake place; and whether the informant’s information came from first-hand observations or “mere rumour or gossip”. [31] I find that there is a substantial amount of detail in the information that was provided by each of the sources.

Theinformation provided by them was not mere conclusory statements that the accused was involved in criminal activity, but disclosed theunderlying circumstances of the drug transactions. The various reports that Source “A” gave were consistent with each other with respectto timing and location of the drug sales.

It is reasonable to infer that, in the information that was provided on June 7, 2010, that “aCaucasian male was seen” and in the information on August 24, 2010, that “Brad Stonestand was seen”, that Source “A” saw thispersonally. [32] I find there is corroboration between the sources: “A”, “C” and “E” report that the drugs are kept in the bedroom; “A” and“E” report that the drugs are kept in a tin can; and “A”, “C” and “D”, report about the timing of the sales being on “welfare days” or the “10th and 20th ”. [33] There is corroboration of Source “A” information about Shirley Stonestand owning a Saturn and Jimmy vehicle: SGIconfirms that two vehicles of this description are associated to Shirley Stonestand.

As well, Bradley Stonestand was stopped onSeptember 7 operating such a vehicle. [34] Sources “A” and “D” both provide the address #7 New York Road, James Smith First Nation, as the address for BradleyStonestand. This is corroborated by the search of the police database. [35] The information provided by Cst. Scott, that marihuana was in the Stonestand residence, corroborates that given by thevarious informants. [36] The test with respect to what standard of proof must be met in order to establish reasonable grounds was stated by JusticeWilson in R. v.

Debot, (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140, at paragraph 54 as “one of “reasonable probability” rather than“proof beyond a reasonable doubt” or “prima facie case”. The phrase “reasonable belief” also approximates the requisite standard”. [37] It is significant to remember that my task is not to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that theaccused is guilty of the alleged offence, but rather whether there was a credible basis for issuing the warrant (R. v.

Morelli, 2010 SCC 8,paragraph 178). [38] I recognize that the information from any one, or perhaps even several of the sources, would not have been sufficient toprovide the necessary reasonable and probable grounds for issuing of the search warrant.

However, after examining the amount of detailfound within most of the information provided by the sources, factoring in the corroborative nature of the sources’ material with eachother and the corroborative nature of the police information, I find, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the reliability of thetips of the informants has been established. [39] I find the authorizing justice could have granted the authorization and there is no basis to interfere with the decision of theJustice of the Peace in issuing the search warrant.

It follows that the search and seizure of evidence by the RCMP officers wasauthorized by law. As a result, the applicants have not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that there has been a breach of s. 8 of theCharter.

______________________________ L. Dyck, J APPENDIX TO STONESTAND DECISION , 2011 SKPC 121 C.D.S.A. See Criminal Code (Section 11) (Section 487.3) CANADA ) ) “On Behalf of Her Majesty the Queen ” Province of Saskatchewan ) INFORMATION TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT AND A SEALING ORDER This is the Information of Constable Sandy Reed a Peace Officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Melfort, Saskatchewan, hereinafter called the informant.

THE INFORMANT SAYS THAT he has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a controlled substance a thing in which such a controlled substance is contained or concealed, offence-related property, or a thing that will afford evidence in respect of an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , to wit: Cannabis Marihuana, notes, address books, notebooks, score sheets, mobile telephones, identification documents, records of telephone numbers/calls, cash or other financial instruments, handwriting samples, weigh scales, packaging material and any other documents or writings relating to the purchase, sale/distribution of Cannabis Marihuana; In respect of which one or more offences have been committed contrary to the following sections of the Act namely; On or about October 6, 2010, Bradley Deon STONESTAND (Date of Birth: August 28, 1967) did unlawfully: Possess a controlled substance to wit: Cannabis Marihuana, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act and further; And that the said controlled substance, a thing in which such a controlled substance is contained or concealed, offence-related property, or a thing that will afford evidence in respect of the aforementioned offence(

s) in a place, namely: #7 New York Road, outbuildings, a 2001 GMC Jimmy Saskatchewan license 309 DMT and a 2003 Saturn L200 Saskatchewan license 441 HEK, located on the James Smith First Nations, Saskatchewan;

I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 I am a peace officer and member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police currently assigned to the Melfort RCMP. I am one of the peace officers participating in an investigation involving the criminal activities of Brad Stonestand concerning violations of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and as such have personal knowledge of the matters herein deposed to, except where stated to be based upon information and belief, and where so stated, I do believe the same to be true. 1.2 In this sworn document I will refer to various terms, the

definitions are as follows: a) “CDSA” means the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ; b) “DOB” means the date of birth the individual to which it follows; c) “Drug” or “Drugs” means a controlled substance referred to in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ; d) “Police Data Base” means a computer system containing information relating to individuals, places and things involved in police investigations e) “RCMP” means the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; f) “weed” means the controlled substance of Cannabis Marihuana annexed in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ; II.

GROUNDS FOR BELIEF 2.1 I spoke with Constable Dwight Sacrey of the Melfort RCMP detachment and he received the following information from Source “A” on March 31, 2010. This is the first time Source “A” has provided information to the police. Source “A” motivation is civic mindedness and betterment of the community. Source “A” told Constable Dwight Sacrey that:

a) Brad and Shirley Stonestand were selling drugs, believed to be mostly cannabis marihuana from their residence located at house # 7 New York Road, James Smith First Nation, Saskatchewan.

b) Brad and Shirley are husband and wife and are not employed and have been collecting social assistance benefits for some time.

c) They have two newer vehicles, both registered to Shirley Stonestand and the vehicles are a red 2003 four door Saturn, with Saskatchewan Licence plate number:441HEK and a grey 2001 GMC Jimmy.

d) There is a high volume of traffic that attends Brad and Shirley’s residence, for short periods of time.

e) Traffic is usually busy after pay days on the reserve, which is the 1 st , 10 th and 20 th of each month.

f) Brad and Shirley sell eggs from their residence and it is used as a cover up for people stopping there to buy drugs.

g) Travis Stonestand has been stopping by Brad and Shirley Stonestand’s and buys cannabis marihuana from Brad and Shirley. Travis also does not have a valid drivers licence and often drives a two tone green early 1990's model Ford F150, club cab pick-up truck. 2.2 I spoke with Constable Mark Burnett of the Melfort RCMP detachment, who told me that he spoke with a confidential source on the James Smith First Nations on April 24 th , 2010. This person is not the same person as Source “A”. Source “B” has not provided information to the police in the past. Source “B” is a concerned citizen that was providing information out of civic mindedness. Source “B” said the following:

a) On the 10 th , 20 th and the end of each month is when there is a lot of foot traffic at Brad Stonestand’s residence.

b) Two Caucasian males were seen at the Brad Stonestand’s residence at #7 New York Road, James Smith First Nations, Saskatchewan, driving a green Chevrolet Cavalier or Pontiac Sunfire with green hubcaps.

c) Transactions take place West of the James Smith First Nations, Saskatchewan on the Coxby Grid approximately 8 km North of Kinistino, Saskatchewan. 2.3 I spoke with Constable Dwight Sacrey of the Melfort RCMP detachment and on May 23, 2010 he received the following information from Source “A” that:

a) Brad and Shirley Stonestand are selling cannabis marihuana from their residence at #7 New York Road, James Smith First Nations, Saskatchewan.

b) Brad Stonestand gets his drugs from a male in Weldon, Saskatchewan.

c) Brad Stonestand sells halves for ten dollars and twenty dollars for a gram.

d) Brad Stonestand keeps his drugs in the first bedroom to the right of the front door, in a tin can.

e) Brad Stonestand has a scale and lots of cash in the bedroom. 2.4 I spoke with Constable Dwight Sacrey of the Melfort RCMP detachment and on June 7, 2010 he received the following information from Source “A” that:

a) In June of 2010, a Caucasian male, was seen delivering a burgundy duffle bag with black straps containing cannabis marihuana to Brad Stonestand’s residence located at #7 New York Road, James Smith First Nations, Saskatchewan. b) [edited]

c) Brad Stonestand sells cannabis marihuana from his residence.

d) Brad Stonestand sells cannabis marihuana on welfare pay days which is usually the 10 th of each month as well as Child Allowance pay days on the 19 th or 20 th of each month. The volume of traffic on these days is very high at Brad Stonestand’s residence. Sometimes it is hard to find a parking spot in his yard. 2.5 I spoke with Constable Kent Scott of the Melfort RCMP detachment and he told me that on August 8, 2010, he spoke with a confidential source, Source “C” is not the same source as Source “A” or Source “B”. Source “C” motivation is judicial consideration. Source “C” told the following information:

a) Brad Stonestand is the biggest drug dealer on the James Smith.

b) Brad Stonestand sells marihuana for $300 an ounce, $125 for a half ounce, $20 for a gram and $10 for a half gram.

c) he keeps his marihuana in his basement and in a dresser.

d) he keeps some marihuana in his bedroom.

e) he brings in marihuana at the end of the month and on the 20 th of each month.

f) he loads up before welfare (meaning loading up with marihuana)

g) he picks up his marihuana from Muskoday or Prince Albert. 2.6 On August 24, 2010, I received information from Source “A” that:

a) On August [edited] 2010 Brad Stonestand received a delivery of cannabis marihuana to his residence at #7 New York Road, James Smith First Nations, Saskatchewan. b) [edited] c) [edited]

d) The person that delivered the cannabis marihuana is from Weldon, Saskatchewan.

e) Brad Stonestand would not sell any cannabis marihuana until he had time to bag it up.

f) Brad Stonestand was seen selling half an ounce of cannabis marihuana.

g) Brad Stonestand keeps his cannabis marihuana in the room of his house that is the first on the right.

h) Brad Stonestand has a scale in the house that he uses to weigh the cannabis marihuana. 2.7 I spoke to Constable Dwight Sacrey of the Melfort RCMP detachment and on September 2 nd , 2010 he spoke with a confidential source, Source “D”. Source “D” is not the same source as Source “A”, Source “B” or Source “C”. Source “D” motivation is financial and betterment of the community. Source “D” told the following information:

a) Brad Stonestand sells cannabis marihuana from his residence at #7 New York Road, James Smith First Nations, Saskatchewan New York Road, James Smith First Nations, Saskatchewan on welfare days which is usually the 10 th of each month.

b) The volume of traffic is very high at Brad Stonestand’s residence at #7 New York Road, [edited]. 2.8 [edited] a) [edited] b) [edited] 2.9 On September 7, 2010, Constable Jerry Abbott initiated a traffic stop and seized a 2001 GMC Jimmy that Brad Stonestand was driving. (Melfort RCMP File 2010-1097814). 2.10 I spoke to Constable Jerry Abbott of the Melfort RCMP detachment and he spoke with a confidential source, Source “E”. Source “E” is not the same source as Source “A”, Source “B”, Source “C” or Source “D”. Source “E” motivation is civic mindedness. Source “E” told the following information:

a) Brad Stonestand is selling cannabis marihuana out of a holiday trailer that is parked in his yard.

b) Brad buys his drugs in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

c) Brad sells to Steve(last name unknown). Steve buys big portions and sells cannabis marihuana for Brad.

d) Brad keeps his drugs in his home in his bedroom in a tobacco tin. 2.11 [edited] a) [edited]

b) [edited] c) [edited] d) [edited] 2.12 On October 5, 2010 I spoke with Constable Kent Scott of the Melfort RCMP Detachment and he said that:

a) He went to the Brad Stonestand residence at 7 New York Road, James Smith First Nation, at 8:00 p.m. on October 05, 2010 to serve a Subpoena in a marked police car.

b) He saw a green Chevrolet Cavalier was idling in the driveway with its lights on at Brad Stonestand residence.

c) He made a u-turn on New York Road and when he did the green Chevrolet Cavalier drove away.

d) He knocked on the front door of the residence and a male voice said “Come in.”

e) He opened the front door and stepped into the house.

f) Immediately upon entrance he could smell a strong fresh odor of raw Cannabis Marihuana coming from inside the residence.

g) There was a medium size dog outside the West door of the residence.

h) There was a large dog and a medium size dog inside the residence.

i) Brad Stonestand quickly came to the door and started to close the door quickly forcing him outside of the house.

j) Brad Stonestand seemed very nervous and did not want him inside the residence. 2.13 On October 5, 2010 I checked Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) database and learned the following;

a) Shirley Stonestand has a 2001 GMC Jimmy S series truck, Saskatchewan license plate number 309 DMT associated to her.

b) Shirley Stonestand has a 2003 Saturn L200 car, Saskatchewan license plate number 441 HEK associated to her. 2.14 I checked on PROS (Police Reporting and Occurrence System, police database) and learned that Bradley Stonestand and Shirley Stonestand live at #7 New York Road, James Smith First Nations, Saskatchewan. 2.15 In my experience as a police officer and speaking with drug investigators, drug traffickers are continually in possession of weighing devices, packaging material, score sheets and monies in order to run their business.

It is my opinion that the recovery of those items specified will afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence under Section 5(1) & 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 2.16 I believe on reasonable and probable grounds that there are items that may afford evidence of possession of a controlled substance and possession for the purpose of trafficking a controlled substance including packaging materials, weighing devices, score sheets and monies in #7 New York Road and outbuildings, a 2001 GMC Jimmy Saskatchewan license 309 DMT and a 2003 Saturn L200 Saskatchewan license 441 HEK, located on the James Smith First Nations, Saskatchewan.

III. REQUEST FOR SEALING ORDER

[3.1 - 3.10 not reproduced as not relevant to this application] IV. CONCLUSION 4.1 I believe that all the facts and matters set forth in this Information to Obtain are true, notwithstanding any omission on my part to specifically so state in any one or more of the grounds or elsewhere in the Information. 4.2 This Information is sworn for the purpose of obtaining a warrant to search pursuant to

section 11 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . THE INFORMANT REQUESTS that a search warrant be granted to enter and search the aforementioned places for and to seize the said controlled substances, property, or things, as the case may be and to deal with it according to law and for a sealing order. SWORN BEFORE ME at Melfort, ) in the Province of Saskatchewan, on ) October 6, 2010 . ) ) ) “Clint Sullivan 3057" ) “S. Reed ” A Justice of the Peace in and for the Province Informant of Saskatchewan.