A man who was charged with drug-related offences may have avoided court, if only he hadn't played hookey.

Douglas Hamilton, Carolyn Johnson and Lorraine Foubister were facing charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking as as well as production of a controlled substance, but those charges were dismissed last week.

On July 28, territorial court Judge Michael Cozens granted the accused's application to exclude from trial any evidence obtained as a result of an RCMP search on their Marsh Lake residence.

Judy Bielefeld, counsel for the Crown, said the judge's decision left her with nothing to admit as evidence, and the charges were dismissed.

Despite the favorable outcome for the accused, the entire matter may not have ended up in court if Hamilton had only showed up for work.

In his written reasons for his decision on the non-admissible evidence, Cozens stated the facts of the case.

When Hamilton did not show up for work at Northwestel Inc. on Oct. 10, 2008, supervisor Gord Peterson was concerned for his employee's well-being and contacted the RCMP.

Peterson testified he told the person answering the RCMP phone that Hamilton was probably out hunting and forgot to call in, but that it was not like Hamilton to fail to come in to work without alerting his boss.

As a result of the call, Const. Greer went to the Marsh Lake home where Hamilton, Johnson and Foubister live, just before 6 p.m.

Greer searched the residence without a warrant. After receiving permission from his superior, he used a locksmith to help him get into an outbuilding on the property. There, he found marijuana plants in various stages of growth and cultivation.

At around 9 p.m., Cpl. Pelletier arrived at the scene and advised Greer that Hamilton had been located and was indeed out hunting.

Two hours later, another officer, Const. Terleski, was issued a warrant to search the Marsh Lake residence and outbuilding.

According to the judge's decision, Terleski said that to obtain the warrant, he relied on information provided to him by Greer about his observations during the warrantless search.

Terleski testified that he was not told prior to applying for the warrant that Hamilton was out hunting.

A subsequent search uncovered 183 marijuana plants, approximately 10 kilograms of marijuana shake and 75 grams of dried marijuana bud.

Bulbs, lighting material, documents and two firearms were also found.

The three residents of the Marsh Lake home were later charged with drug-related offences.

The judge's report indicates that once the issue went to court, Edward Horembala, Hamilton's and Johnson's lawyer, filed an application challenging the validity of the search warrant. He asked that all evidence seized as a result of the search be excluded from admission at trial.

Horembala argued there was no statutory nor legal authority for Greer's warrantless search because there were no emergency circumstances that would have justified entry to the outbuilding.

As a result, the warrantless search was not justified, and violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the lawyer said.

Also, argued Horembala, the search warrant was issued on the basis of Greer's observations. Without that information, there were no reasonable grounds on which to issue the warrant, he submitted.

In contrast, Crown counsel argued that Greer's search of the outbuilding was justified by the common law of police duty to protect life.

In his decision, Cozens concludes there was no "reasonable basis” for Greer to think Hamilton was in danger, and it was not necessary for Greer to enter the residence nor the outbuilding.

"While such a possibility existed, it was a tenuous possibility at best,” he says.

Once Greer arrived, he saw that Hamilton's personal vehicle was not present. Cozens says it would have been reasonable for Greer to conclude that Hamilton had gone hunting and had neglected to tell Peterson.

Cozens found that Greer decided to enter the residence "out of an abundance of caution.

"While in and of itself, this decision was not in pursuit of an improper purpose, it was nonetheless unlawful.”

In this case, the judge ruled, there was no indication Hamilton was in distress – just an unknown reason why he didn't show up at work.