SCAN eviction rapped after legal challenge
The Yukon's Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods legislation failed its first test in court.
The Yukon's Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods legislation failed its first test in court.
The law, known as SCAN, gives the territory's director of crime prevention the power to evict renters suspected of dealing drugs from their homes.
Karen Nicloux was one such suspect.
A neighbour called the SCAN office in late February to complain that known drug users and dealers were frequenting Nicloux's Granger house, and that Nicloux herself was allegedly "dealing crack."
After a month of on-and-off stake-outs, the SCAN investigation team decided they had sufficient evidence to show the accusation was true.
They delivered an eviction notice on April 9 with the blessings of Nicloux's landlord, a manager with the Whitehorse Housing Authority, and the director of crime prevention.
Within hours, Nicloux had filed an application to the Yukon Supreme Court that the eviction order be thrown out. Her case marks the first time a SCAN eviction has been challenged in the Yukon courts.
That evening, she was arrested near Hamilton Boulevard in the Granger subdivision.
Whitehorse RCMP allege she was in the middle of a drug deal with a woman named Xiao Wen.
One and a half grams of cocaine were seized during the arrest, according to police, and drug trafficking charges were laid against both women.
This was the second time Nicloux was arrested on suspicion of dealing crack. The first time was on April 7.
Police reported that on that night, when Nicloux was approached by an officer in the alley behind Hanna Crescent in the McIntyre subdivision, she dropped two bags which contained 13 grams of cocaine, separated into 0.3 grams "flaps", and "baggies" weighing between two and seven grams.
But, as the judge who considered Nicloux's application to have the eviction order dismissed said, the first arrest "has nothing to do with the tenant engaging in the prohibited activities at or near the unit."
The second set of charges were laid after the hearing, so the judge never heard of them in court and could not consider them when making his ruling.
Justice Earl Johnson put a 60-day hold on the eviction order. Yesterday, he released his decision in favour of Nicloux.
He said the eviction order was based on "weak" evidence, and he criticized the director of crime prevention for allowing it.
"If the director had applied for the order, I would have refused to grant it," the judge said.
In his decision Johnson pointed out several unfair circumstances in the SCAN complaint-investigation process, including the fact that the accused person cannot know who originally made the complaint, nor cross-examine that person in court.
In this case, the whole process was rushed, he said, and the director should have taken more time to prepare the case against Nicloux and have it approved by the court rather than approving it himself.
"An application for an order would have been preferable and would have given the director sufficient time to prepare affidavits of better quality to substantiate the allegations," Johnson said in his decision. "... Hopefully this is how the director will proceed in
the future."
The judge ordered the Yukon government to pay Nicloux's legal costs, which would otherwise have been paid out of the territory's legal aid fund.
But all this is perhaps moot for Nicloux, who has found herself facing yet another set of charges.
The 43-year-old woman is currently in jail after being arrested on April 17.
She is charged with possession of crack cocaine, failing to stop when ordered by a police officer, escaping custody and possession of a cell phone or pager contrary to a court order.
Comments (4)
Up 0 Down 0
Arn Anderson on May 30, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Now in todays world why wasnt the RCMP investigating who REPORTED the crime. To me in Yukon's law enforcement sense this would be the most optimal route for the RCMP. Remember RCMP care about stupid little crimes then crimes that actually affect our society. The court system proves it. All you naysayers saying that the RCMP do thier job but its the judges, gimme a break, obviously the RCMP has no B*LLS and refuses to stand up to "judical" system.
One of my observations of "serve and protect" was the hassling of an youth who was walking down the street with a beer, wow, SAVING LIVES, yet a street down, KNOWN drug dealers slingin outside a well known bar. The proof is before your eyes, the RCMP is only to provide a "cover" of enforcing the law and protecting citizens because the way things are going now, which is straight to dumpsville, is what the gov't truly wants. For citizens to cry out for more gov't intervention which gives them the prompt right to mess around with our civil liberties in name of 'protecting' us. SCAN that.
Up 0 Down 0
Bobby Bitman on May 29, 2009 at 11:59 am
Ms. Nicloux has established herself as a liar and a crack dealer and she has no respect for court orders. Funny how disobeying a court order lands her in jail - the judge can't tolerate that, but selling crack from her home is supposed to be tolerated by the neighbours.
I know that it is a matter of clearly defining that she has broken the law, but the point of the SCAN program is to deal with exactly these kinds of situations. The police and courts are unable or unwilling to gather the evidence and convict, so we had Chris Oulette openly and admittedly dealing cocaine for 20 years on Wheeler. The SCAN program got rid of him quite quickly where the courts and police were impotent. Now it looks like the courts are trying to render SCAN impotent as well.
Listen to the judge's arguments and see if we can adjust SCAN so it fits the law, and if it can't be adjusted and still be effected, change the law. Launch a challenge to the judge's finding.
Up 0 Down 0
Thomas Brewer on May 29, 2009 at 10:54 am
0 for 1, guys... not an impressive start.
Perhaps the entire SCAN legislation should be reviewed to remove some of it's draconian bent. Most of the people I've talked to in the department of Justice acknowledge that this legislation won't stand up to a Supreme Court challenge, but are happy that it's working in the interim.
Up 0 Down 0
Joseph Campbell on May 29, 2009 at 10:15 am
The judges today are against justice and are the criminals best ally. Its time to appoint judges based on their wisdom. Better still elect them. When they screw up give them their walking papers. After awhile the rest will get the message.