R. v. Rezaei

2017 BCSC 1639 R. v. Rezaei IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Rezaei, 2017 BCSC 1639 Date: 20170915 Docket: X079422 Registry: New Westminster Regina v. Saviz Rezaei and Debra Eremenko Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Jenkins Oral Reasons for Judgment on a Voir Dire Counsel for the Crown: M. Wiancko G. Clark Counsel for Saviz Rezaei: T.D. Anderson Counsel for Debra Lee Eremenko: J. Stowe Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. February 27 and 28, 2017 March 1, 8, 21, 22, 2017 April 4 - 7, 12, 2017 August 21 - 23, 2017 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. September 15, 2017 [1] Each of the accused before me stand charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance--Cocaine--for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996 c. 19 ("the CDSA"). [2] At the opening of trial, I declared a voir dire respecting s. 8 and 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11 (the "Charter"), on the issues of the lawfulness of the arrests of the two accused and the searches of their persons and vehicles. During the s. 8 and 9 voir dire, I declared a further voir dire regarding an alleged s. 10(b) breach in the case of Ms. Eremenko regarding her right to access to counsel without delay. These are my reasons on the three voir dire applications. [3] The accused, Mr. Rezaei, has also indicated that he will seek a voir dire on the issue of the failure to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter, which application, if necessary, is to be heard at a future date. [4] During multiple days of hearing, I have heard the evidence of seven RCMP officers who were involved in the investigation of the charges including the testimony of Cpl. Sharma, whose roles included those of primary investigator, file coordinator, member of the surveillance team, and dealing with the handler of a confidential informant. It is Cpl. Sharma whose evidence was the most significant in this investigation as it was he who made the decisions to carry out the arrest of the two accused on December 12, 2013, and the subsequent warrantless searches of their persons and vehicles following arrest. The Law - Reasonable and Probable Grounds to Arrest [5] The applicable law regarding s. 9 of the Charter, and the arrest of the two accused is not in issue. Counsel for Mr. Rezaei stated, in his written submissions: 43. The law is well settled in this area and fairly stated in the Crown's written argument at paragraphs 43 to 50, and summarized in R. v. Cornwell, 2017 BCSC 1340 at paras. 4 through 8. Which are: [4] Under s. 495(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, an arrest without warrant is authorized if a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe a person has committed an indictable offence. [5] In the 1990 decision of R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241 the Supreme Court of Canada set out a two part test to establish reasonable grounds for arrest without a warrant, which was referenced in R. v. Messina, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2521, a decision of the Court of Appeal, where at para. 20 the court stated: The first step requires the arresting officer to have a subjective, personal belief that there are reasonable grounds for the arrest. The second part requires objective justification for the officer's subjective belief. In assessing objective justification, the consideration is whether a reasonable person, "standing in the shoes of the police officer, would have believed that reasonable and probable grounds existed to make the arrest" [from] Storrey. The test requires reasonable probability or reasonable belief and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. Debot. [6] Also in Messina, at para. 22, the court referred to the decision of MacKenzie J (as she then was) in R. v. To (1998), 109 B.C.A.C. 242 in which MacKenzie J. in turn referred to the decision of Justice Thackray in R. v. Feeney, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13: After reviewing Storrey, R. v. Feeney. . . . . . and cases from other jurisdictions. . . Justice Thackray said: The test set forth is to establish that "a reasonable person, standing in the shoes of the police officer, would have believed that reasonable and probable grounds existed to make the arrest." This does not mean that the beliefs of police officers are not necessarily objective. However, ...that their conclusions might be perceived to have a bias or prejudice they must be subjected to a test of whether a reasonable person standing in the officers' shoes would have come to the same conclusion. In applying the Storrey test the knowledge of the police officers is not to be ignored. As said in R. v. Rajaratnam: . . .a judge is entitled to consider a police officer's training and experience in determining objective reasonableness. . . .What may appear to be innocent objects to the general public may have a very different meaning to an officer experienced in drug operations: And then in Messina the court also stated, referencing R. v. Ashby, 2013 BCCA 334 where Justice Frankel stated: However, notwithstanding that each of those factors. . . . . .alone can be consistent with non-criminal activity, their combined effect, when viewed through the lens of a police officer's experience, cannot be ignored. As Madam Justice MacKenzie stated in R. v. Wilson. . . . . .[the] Court has consistently held that an arresting officer's personal experience is relevant to whether the officer's subjective belief in grounds to arrest is objectively justified". Apposite is the following succinct statement by Madam Justice Moen in [an Alberta case of] R. v. Kluczny, [A]n officer experienced in drug operations can see a series of what might appear to a layperson to be innocent objects and take a very different meaning from them than the layperson might. [8] Also in R. v. Luong, 2010 BCCA 158 Bennett, J.A., for the Court of Appeal stated: The assessment of whether objective grounds exist undertaken by a trial judge is conducted by first looking at the observations of the officer (which the trial judge has found as facts) through the lens of someone who has the same experience, training, knowledge and skills as the officer who is making the observations, and then deciding if a reasonable person with the same lens would come to the same conclusion as the police officer. [6] Cpl. Sharma has been an officer with the RCMP over a period of 12.5 years. He worked in the Coquitlam, B.C. detachment until December 2016, and was a member of the Coquitlam, B.C. Drug Enforcement Team between June 2008 and December 2013. He has extensive experience with drug enforcement and has been engaged in the surveillance of drug investigations on an "almost daily" basis. Additionally, he has observed hand to hand transactions involving illegal drugs on multiple occasions over several years during surveillance assignments [7] Cpl. Sharma also testified of his experience and knowledge of the Downtown East Side of Vancouver ("DTES") which included his awareness of the DTES being populated by a very substantial drug addicted population who are generally poor, homeless, and purchase illegal drugs largely on the street from persons dealing in the trafficking of illegal drugs. The extent of drug trafficking, addictions and the consequences of the same have been common knowledge in the DTES for many decades. [8] The investigation in this case initiated from information provided by Det. Spencer of the Transit Police who dealt with a confidential informant the officer had known for many years and was known by Det. Spencer to be a reliable informant as a result of his past experiences with him. Det. Spencer is a retired a member of the Vancouver Police Department. During his career he forged relationships with various informants including the informant in this case. [9] On the direction of his supervisor, Cpl. Sharma met with Det. Spencer on November 20, 2013 at the RCMP detachment in Coquitlam. Prior to that meeting, Cpl. Sharma briefly reviewed a series of "source de-briefing documents" that had been provided to the RCMP by Det. Spencer to the RCMP. I summarize significant information gleaned from Det. Spencer by Cpl. Sharma on November 20, 2013 as follows: · Det. Spencer advised of two individuals, specifically Mr. Saviz Rezaei and Ms. Debra Eremenko, who resided in Coquitlam at suite 2307 - 2978 Glen Drive as well as two others, whose names he could not recall, but who were commonly known as "Ash" and "Mo". · Suite 2307 was a stash house for drugs and money. A firearm was kept there, and Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko together delivered drugs to the DTES. · That they did so "fairly regularly", a few ounces at a time to street corner dealers. · That Ms. Eremenko carried drugs in a bag and physically on her person secreted in her vagina to avoid detection. · Det. Spencer advised Cpl. Sharma that the confidential informant was of "known reliability". Det. Spencer had dealt with the informant for a number of years and he was a credible informant. [10] Cpl. Sharma determined the next step was to see if the information provided by Det. Spencer could be corroborated through surveillance which began after the assembly of a team of RCMP officers engaged in drug investigations and led to a briefing of the team on the morning of November 21, 2013. [11] Other information obtained by Cpl. Sharma for the investigation included target vehicles, a black BMW 700 series B.C. plate number 704-NSW associated with Mr. Rezaei and a brown Lexus license number 881-RRR associated with Ms. Eremenko. [12] Commencing November 21, 2013, Cpl. Sharma conducted briefings with his surveillance team and participated in the surveillance of the two accused over 12 days in November and December 2013, culminating in the arrest of the two accused on December 12, 2013. In addition to his personal observations, Cpl. Sharma was advised of observations made by members of the surveillance team through the police radio frequency and statements made to him by members of the surveillance team. [13] A detailed summary of observations by members of the surveillance team over the 12 days is set out at pages 4 through 14 of the written submissions of the Crown on this voir dire. Those entries include personal observations of Cpl. Sharma stated in his direct and cross-examinations, often after having refreshed his memory after looking at his notes made on the day of the observations. I have reviewed that summary carefully and have compared the entries to notes taken by me during the voir dire and find the summary to be accurate. I adopt the summary of observations made by the members of the surveillance team, which I have reproduced and attached as Schedule "A" to these reasons. In several cases, I have also reviewed audio of the voir dire proceedings and found that the information contained in the Crown submissions is accurate. In respect of the summary for November 28, 2013, a reference in the summary to "Ms. Rezaei" seen by Cst. Dulay "return to the parkade at 2378 Glen Dr." was clearly a typographical error. Notes and audio show it was Mr. Rezaei who returned in the Lexus. [14] Included among the notes of the observations are daily entries indicating Cpl. Sharma's conclusions on the progress of the daily surveillance as stated by him during his direct-examination. Those entries represent his state of mind based upon the observations and his experience over several years as a drug enforcement officer which eventually led to the arrest of the two accused persons. [15] The surveillance evidence summarized in Schedule "A" is corroborative of the information provided from the confidential informant to Det. Spencer to Cpl. Sharma on November 20, 2013, with respect to: 1. The residence of the two accused; 2. Their "fairly regular" trips to the DTES from Coquitlam in two vehicles, ie. the Lexus and the BMW in close proximity; 3. The two accused parked in the same parkade or close by on the street in the same area of the DTES on all of the trips to the DTES; 4. That Ms. Eremenko was seen on occasions looking nervous, turning her head regularly to see if others were about after she left her car, and that she often met with Mr. Rezaei in the DTES and would soon after leave; and 5. That Mr. Rezaei was seen on several occasions, notably engaged in "hand to hand" exchanges or transactions and several interactions with multiple persons in the neighbourhood of "Pigeon Park", an area known to be an active drug trafficking location. [16] The testimony of Cpl. Sharma and Cst. Dulay was tested vigorously on cross-examination as to whether they witnessed hand to hand transactions of illegal drugs, specifically cocaine, to which I will refer again later in these reasons. [17] The decision to arrest Ms. Eremenko and Mr. Rezaei on December 12, 2013, was a decision made by Cpl. Sharma following 12 days of surveillance. In considering his experience as a drug enforcement officer, the information from the confidential informant through Det. Spencer, the observations testified to by other members of the surveillance team and reported to him at briefings or over the police radio, and a review of his personal notes I am satisfied that Cpl. Sharma had reasonable and probable grounds to effect the arrest of the accused. Regarding his state of mind as of December 12, 2013, and his decision to arrest on December 12, 2013, Cpl. Sharma stated, as summarized at paras. 10 and 11 of the Crown submissions as follows: 10. CpI. Sharma summarized his grounds to arrest as follows: My grounds on Dec. 12, 2013, was what I refer to as the totality of the circumstances. I'll elaborate further to what I mean. On Nov. 20th, 2013, Coquitlam RCMP had received info from Cst. Doug Spencer. I had reviewed info, spoke to Cst. Doug Spencer... I found the info provided to be compelling, credible, and able to be corroborated through surveillance and through further investigation. Starting on Nov. 21, with surveillance, Rezaei and Eremenko demonstrated to me behavior that was consistent with the information that had been provided by Spencer to the RCMP, and was indicative of drug trafficking. Starting on Nov. 21st, 2013, there had begun a set of behavior and observable pattern demonstrated by Eremenko and Rezaei that was consistent, repeated and further progressed in my mind on a near daily basis a further progression of my belief that Eremenko and Rezaei were engaged in drug trafficking. The surveillance observations that I personally noted, and by being a member of the surveillance team had overheard and been aware of by investigational briefings and debriefings, further convinced me that the established pattern of behavior suggested to me a coordinated teamwork effort of protecting an asset, which in this case would be the drugs. The meets downtown in the DTES between Eremenko and Rezaei also further established my grounds of belief that the endpoint, the delivery point, for the DTES was the delivery for trafficking. Eremenko's behavior on Dec 4, 2013, during surveillance, which I believed to be counter surveillance techniques, further professed my belief that Eremenko was protecting an asset which I believed to be the drugs, and wished not to have police detection, and therefore engaged in counter surveillance techniques to thwart or detect police intervention. And the observations on Dec. 5 and 6, both by members of surveillance team and by myself, seeing the ultimate delivery of the drugs, what I believed to be drugs, from Coquitlam to the DTES, involving Eremenko and Rezaei, and Rezaei "overseeing or standing at the post" on the street corners of the DTES, was one of the final solidifiers of my belief which crystallized my grounds to believe that Rezaei and Eremenko were engaged in PPT, that they transported drugs from their apartment at 2978 Glenn Drive to the DTES. 11. CpI. Sharma also articulated that his grounds were initially formed on December 6, 2013, and explained how the observations post December 6, 2013, merely added to his already reasonable grounds. He explained the following: Dec. 12th was not the realization of my grounds for belief, but rather the execution of my grounds for belief which had already been crystallized and formed on Dec. 6, for me. Dec. 12 was the execution of those grounds for belief based upon a number of circumstances which I outlined before, but I will reiterate as a consistent developed pattern on display yet again, and a risk assessment to conduct the arrest where it was. That was my rationale for undertaking the arrest decision on Dec. 12th. Q - Can you just, and maybe you've answered, repeat about it crystallizing on Dec. 6 vs 12th? A - Absolutely. Each day of surveillance seemed to me to progress the investigation a little bit further. On Dec. 6, 2013, when I observed the UM - identified as the black male standing at the corner of W Cordova and Abbott, engage in the 2 HTH transactions or short duration visits, and being aware that male had met with Rezaei and had a short duration visits with that male, made known to me by Cst. Dulay, I believed on Dec. 6, 2013 that the entirety of the set of circumstances, the given fact pattern to date, to mean to me that Rezaei and Eremenko were arrestable for the offence of PPT. However, taking into account a number of other considerations such as a risk assessment for collateral safety of other civilians around, and also the fact of the terms of an evidentiary preservation assessment, given fact on Dec. 6, 2013, at approximately hours, the fact I saw male engage in HTH transactions, short duration visits, and Eremenko was away towards the Coquitlam side or driving back to Coquitlam, it was not an opportune moment to arrest Rezaei as arresting one could notify the other, and it was my belief that the apartment at 2307 - 2978 Glenn Drive, was what was referred to in my first day of testimony as a stash house where drugs and money were kept. So, my belief crystallized or came to a realization on Dec. 6, 2013. But, I didn't believe it was an opportune moment to arrest based on a risk assessment of the operational factors. Q - Why did you decide to do the arrest on Dec. 12th? A - Because I believed it to be the appropriate set of circumstances in existence and in place at that time. My grounds for arrest were present, I conveyed those grounds for arrest at the briefing in the morning, I also conveyed the fact that they were to be arrested and arrestable during the surveillance at the "take down" at 1230 hours, and I believe the risk assessment had been taken into consideration I took it into consideration, and putting it in linear terms Eremenko and Rezaei had just left their apartment. Both together. Both occupied their vehicles. They had just departed their apartment which was a stash house. They were still together. Still progressing towards the DTES, a consistent pattern of behavior, the fact they were together, and given the immediacy of the movement merely minutes since they had departed the stash house, as a risk assessment for the evidentiary value of what was inside the stash house, i.e. drugs or money, I felt this was the opportune moment to conduct the arrest, the final portion of the risk assessment being the safety of the officers involved and any civilians that may or may not be nearby. [18] The defence does not take significant exception to the description of the surveillance evidence as described in Schedule "A", however they challenge the credibility of Cpl. Sharma due to some inconsistencies in his evidence. They submit that the lack of credibility and reliability arising from misstatements by Cpl. Sharma must lead to the court rejecting the evidence of Cpl. Sharma, especially in connection with his conclusion as to whether he had subjectively determined that there were grounds to arrest Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko on December 12, 2013. Those areas of his evidence facing challenge included: · The defence referred to the testimony of Cpl. Sharma at the preliminary inquiry and how that evidence contrasted with his evidence on the voir dire regarding when and in what capacity Cpl. Sharma became involved in the investigation. His evidence at the preliminary inquiry was that he was involved in the investigation at three times. 1. November 2013, to confirm the residency of the accused from the apartment manager; 2. December 6, 2013, when he was part of the surveillance team; and 3. December 12, 2013, during the arrest. · That evidence was clearly incorrect as, from a review of all of his evidence, and that of several other officers on the surveillance team, it is clear that he coordinated the surveillance as of November 20, 2013, commencing with the briefing that morning. Cpl. Sharma remained involved on all of the days as set out in Schedule "A". Cpl.. Sharma corrected himself upon reviewing his notes and confirmed that he had been incorrect regarding when and how he became involved in the investigation. I find that any inconsistency as to the dates when Cpl. Sharma assumed his role as a member of the surveillance team and when he became the prime investigator are of no particular significance during a preliminary inquiry as opposed to a voir dire. What is significant is that he did confirm the residency of the accused, he did become the prime investigator, and once he had reviewed his notes was able to correct misstatements. · Also on cross-examination, Cpl. Sharma was challenged on his use of terminology adopted by the RCMP which had particular meaning to a drug investigator, and referenced the terms "short duration visit", "hand to hand transaction" and "hand to hand interaction". Cpl. Sharma testified that he had, in his years of experience, seen many "hand to hand transactions" involving the exchange of money for drugs and that many of those transactions are "in tandem with a short duration visit--people do not want to draw attention, they are secretive, use 'furtive movements which involve seconds'". The exchanges described in Schedule "A" are all indicative of drug transactions. The fact that some were described as an "interaction" as opposed to a "transaction" is merely representative of what the officers could actually see. While some were apparent in their appearance as a transaction, others involved only hand to hand activity and were of short duration. In the DTES, the meeting of an individual with several persons on the street, being short in duration meetings, usually a few seconds, and hands coming into contact are, based upon all of the evidence, indicative of drug transactions. Also, officers on the street cannot state with any certainty what is being exchanged. On cross-examination on March 21, 2017, Cpl. Sharma stated: I understood interactions were consistent with trafficking. Interactions could be a transaction . . and could be something else . . something exchanging hands . . an interaction is almost the same thing . . An interaction could mean he did not see the transaction clearly enough . I find that both a hand to hand transaction and a hand to hand interaction in the manners described are both indicative of drug transactions. The officers based their observations on their knowledge of the DTES and described interactions accordingly. · The defence refers to the evidence of Cpl. Sharma relating to the investigation involving only two targets, ie. the accused, whereas Cpl. Sharma on cross-examination stated there had been four or five targets at the outset of the investigation. Their concern is that he misled the court as to who the targets of this investigation were. On cross-examination, Cpl. Sharma agreed that there had been three suites in 2978 Glen Drive that were of interest to the investigation and that there were, at one point, four and possibly five targets. Det. Spencer. On re-direct examination he explained that when he answered "yes" to questions from Mr. Anderson about having misled the court as to how many persons had been targets, he stated "I still maintain there were two targets, Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko and when I hear the term "targets", I refer to the people who our energy and resources are being devoted to Cpl. Sharma testified at the voir dire on March 21, 2017, that as of December 3, 2013, he had rarely seen the other two targets and that they were "down to two targets and one residence, ie. suite 2307". He clarified his evidence to state that as of November 20, 2013, there could have been as many as five targets, but from November 20, 2013, onwards, there were two targets. I conclude the evidence relating to the number of targets was uncertain up to a certain period of time, likely to December 2, 2013, however, it was clear that after that date there were two prime targets and they were the two accused. Based upon all of the evidence relating to the number of targets or persons being investigated, Cpl. Sharma was not deliberately attempting to mislead. In any event, this voir dire was to determine solely whether there were reasonable grounds to arrest the two accused and there remains considerable evidence supporting that opinion. · Cpl. Sharma was questioned on cross-examination regarding two draft Informations to Obtain warrants ("ITOs") which were not issued by the judicial officer reviewing the same. Firstly, Cpl. Sharma had no involvement in the preparation of the ITOs. Secondly, whether the rejected ITOs were or were not satisfactory does not in any way relate to the issues on this voir dire. The judicial officer was reviewing an ITO relating to whether or not there were reasonable and probable grounds that controlled drugs could be found at the residence of the two accused. That issue is irrelevant to the issue of the legality of the arrest of Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko and Cpl. Sharma never saw the draft ITOs. · Another matter raised by the defence on credibility was the triggering event for proceeding with the arrests of December 12, 2013. Evidence of the officers did vary on what would be the triggering event which would result in the arrests of the accused. Two events were to be considered: 1. Whether Ms. Eremenko was, on leaving the apartment, carrying a black bag; or 2. Whether, as of that day, they were both travelling in their vehicles in the direction of the DTES as they did on days when surveillance had observed the accused in the DTES. These events would presumably be supportive of the accused transporting drugs. I do not find either possible triggering event to be determinative of whether an arrest would follow. Having seen Ms. Eremenko carrying a black bag, having been advised of the confidential informant information that she often carried drugs in a bag or in her person and seeing both drive towards the DTES were factors considered in whether to make an arrest. I add that on the day of the arrest, there were officers awaiting them for surveillance purposes who were stationed in vehicles prepared to follow the accused towards the DTES. I conclude that no one factor was a "triggering event" to arrest. Cst. Wylie, among others, also stated the decision to arrest required a direction from Cpl. Sharma as to whether Cpl. Sharma determined he had reasonable and probable grounds to believe the two accused had engaged in trafficking. [19] Considering the evidence of Cpl. Sharma in its entirety, I am satisfied that his evidence was credible and reliable. Any misstatements were either not significant or have been adequately explained in his evidence. [20] I also conclude that Cpl. Sharma had subjectively determined, as of December 11, 2013, that he had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko for possession of controlled drugs for the purpose of trafficking. I also find that on a balance of probabilities, the test referred to in R v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140, [1989] S.C.J. No. 118, there was objective justification, considering the whole of the evidence, to arrest Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko. Alleged Breaches of s. 10(b) of the Warrantless Searches of Person and Vehicles including the Strip Search of Ms. Eremenko [21] Upon the arrests carried out on December 12, 2013, both of the accused were searched by way of a "pat down" and their separate vehicles were also searched, briefly at the point of the arrests, and again at the detachment. As well, a strip search of Ms. Eremenko was carried out by Cst. Hurtubise and Sgt. Milne at the Coquitlam detachment. [22] The arrest of Ms. Eremenko was effected by Cst. Todd following instructions from Cpl. Sharma. The stop of Ms. Eremenko was made at 1236 hours while she was driving westbound on Moray St. in Port Moody. The officer advised her she was under arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking, read her Charter rights and caution to which Ms. Eremenko replied that she understood and, yes, she wanted to speak to a lawyer. He then placed her in the back seat of his police cruiser. [23] Cst. Todd testified that he carried out a cursory search of the Lexus incidental to arrest at roadside for evidence indicative of drug trafficking during which he found a cell phone and a fob with two keys in the center console of the Lexus. He learned that one of the keys and the fob were for access to the Glen Drive apartment and he turned the same over to Cst. Wylie who became the exhibits officer during the subsequent search of unit 2307 2978 Glen Drive. At 1317 hours he was instructed by Cpl. Sharma to transport Ms. Eremenko to the Coquitlam cells while the Lexus was transported to an area of the detachment where it could be thoroughly searched for evidence of trafficking. [24] Cst. Todd did not give roadside access for Ms. Eremenko to speak to a lawyer due to security and safety concerns. He was concerned about not being able to control who she may call on a cell phone and was cognizant of preserving evidence at unit 2307 which could be entered by others prior to the police arriving for a search. [25] Upon arriving at the detachment, Cst. Todd advised Cpl. Damgagian and Cpl. Sharma that he had not found any drugs and that Cpl. Damgagian authorized a strip search to be carried out at the cells. Upon arrival at the cells, Cst. Todd met his superior, Cpl. Green who also authorized the strip search, who also told Cst. Todd that often smaller levels of drugs are located in body cavities. He then turned Ms. Eremenko over to Cst. Hurtubise and Sgt. Milne, both of whom were female officers located at the detachment. [26] Cst. Todd then left to complete a search incidental to arrest of the Lexus and Mr. Rezaei's BMW. Neither revealed any evidence of drug trafficking. [27] Ms. Eremenko was searched on three occasions by Cst. Hurtubise before being placed in a cell. She had been advised by Cpl. Sharma of the reasons for arrest. [28] Cst. Hurtubise first carried out a head to toe "pat down" search at 1337 hours near the booking area at the detachment which yielded no evidence of trafficking. She described in detail how she carried out that search. Upon completion, she advised her superiors that she had not found evidence and was told she should carry out a strip search as Ms. Eremenko may have concealed drugs in her vagina. [29] A second "pat down" search was carried out in a private room with Sgt. Milne nearby. Ms. Eremenko was asked to remove her bra and tank top or sweater as she was allowed only one layer of clothing and Ms. Eremenko kept her sweater to keep warm. Again, no drugs were found by Cst. Hurtubise which she soon relayed to Cpl. Green who ordered a strip search as he believed she may have drugs in her vagina. [30] Cst. Hurtubise then proceeded to explain in detail what occurred during the strip search carried out in the same private room. She told Ms. Eremenko they had to search her once more to make sure there were no drugs on her and to leave her sweater on. She continued to describe how Ms. Eremenko then reached down the front of her pants and pulled out one small transparent bag, about one inch square, which contained a white rock substance that she thought was drugs. Upon being told by Cst. Hurtubise she still needed to pull down her pants and underwear, Ms. Eremenko pulled out another similar transparent bag and contents which she handed to the Cst.. Subsequently, Ms. Eremenko was asked to take a squatting position to see if more drugs were present in the same location. She did so, and no further evidence of trafficking was found. [31] The two small transparent bags and their contents were handed over to Cst. Wylie. [32] Returning to facts relating to Ms. Eremenko's s. 10(b) rights, at the detachment, Cst. O'Brien was asked to facilitate her access to counsel by making a call to Legal Aid on an RCMP landline and left a message to return the call. A response was received approximately 10 minutes later when Legal Aid called back and Ms. Eremenko was taken to a private room to have a conversation with Legal Aid. That call was disconnected at some point, Cst. O'Brien again called Legal Aid and at 1550 hours, Legal Aid returned the call after which time Ms. Eremenko continued with the call before being sent to a cell. [33] It is understood that Ms. Eremenko did not make a statement of any kind to the police. [34] If an arrest is lawful, the power of the police to search incidental to arrest justifies a warrantless search and is justified if carried out for a purpose connected to an arrest. (See R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51, [1998] S.C.J. No 3 (Caslake) at para. 14) [35] At para. 25 of Caslake, Larmer, C.J. stated: 25. In summary, searches must be authorized by law. If the law on which the Crown is relying for authorization is the common law doctrine of search incidental to arrest, then the limits of this doctrine must be respected. The most important of these limits is that the search must be truly incidental to the arrest. This means that the police must be able to explain, within the purposes articulated in Cloutier, supra (protecting the police, protecting the evidence, discovering evidence), or by reference to some other valid purpose, why they searched. They do not need reasonable and probable grounds. However, they must have had some reason related to the arrest for conducting the search at the time the search was carried out, and that reason must be objectively reasonable. Delay and distance do not automatically preclude a search from being incidental to arrest, but they may cause the court to draw a negative inference. However, that inference may be rebutted b a proper explanation. (Emphasis added) [36] In this case were the searches of the two accused and their vehicles truly incidental to arrest and was the reason objectively reasonable? The answer to that question is clearly "yes". As a result of the surveillance that had been carried out over approximately four weeks, the information departed by the confidential informant to Det. Spencer and the investigation as a whole, it was reasonable to search the persons of the accused and their vehicles which, based upon information then in the possession of the police could reasonably contain evidence of drug trafficking and weapons. The officers were obviously looking for evidence which could support the reasons for the arrest. [37] The leading case on strip searches is R. v. Golden, 2001 SCC 83, 207 D.L.R. (4th) 18 (Golden) in which the Supreme Court placed restrictions on searches incidental to arrest to comply with s. 8 of the Charter. Essentially, Golden established that to conduct a strip search incidental to arrest, there must be reasonable and probable grounds to conclude that a strip search is necessary. Regarding necessity, the Court found at para. 93: The reasonableness of a search for evidence is governed by the need to preserve the evidence and to prevent its disposal by the arrestee. Where arresting officers suspect that evidence may have been secreted on areas of the body that can only be exposed by a strip search, the risk of disposal must be reasonably assessed in the circumstances: [38] In Golden, the Court referred at paras. 58 and 101 to the English Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 to establish a protocol for a strip search which would be Charter compliant incidental to arrest in which protocol the following questions were to be asked regarding compliance: 1. Can the strip search be conducted at the police station, and if not, why not? 2. Will the strip search be conducted in a manner that ensures the health and safety of all involved? 3. Will the strip search be authorized by a police officer acting in a supervisory capacity? 4. Has it been ensured that the police officers(s) carrying out the strip search are of the same gender as the individual being searched? 5. Will the number of police officers involved in the search be no more than is reasonably necessary in the circumstances? 6. What is the minimum of force necessary to conduct the strip search? 7. Will the strip search be carried out in a private area such that no one other than the individuals engaged in the search can observe the search? 8. Will the strip search be conducted as quickly as possible and in a way that ensures that the person is not completely undressed at any one time? 9. Will the strip search involve only a visual inspection of the arrestee's genital and anal areas without any physical contact? 10. If the visual inspection reveals the presence of a weapon or evidence in a body cavity (not including the mouth), will the detainee be given the option of removing the object himself or having the object removed by a trained medical professional? 11. Will a proper record be kept of the reasons for and the manner in which the strip search was conducted? [39] In the decision of R. v. Vixaysongkham, 2007 BCSC 183, 45 C.R. (6th) 198, the court found that a mere suspicion drugs may be secreted on a person is not sufficient, but that if the suspicion does have some foundation or evidence to support the suspicion, then a strip search may be reasonable. [40] Mr. Rezaei, was arrested by Cst. O'Brien after being pulled over on Murray St. in Port Moody at the direction of Cpl. Sharma following which Cst. O'Brien conducted a "pat down" search which did not produce evidence of drug trafficking. At approximately 1240 hours and after being given his Charter rights, he was taken to the cells in Coquitlam. His vehicle was subsequently searched at the Coquitlam detachment. Ms. Eremenko's ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) Charter Infringement Allegations [41] Ms. Eremenko's submits her ss.8, 9, and 10(b) Charter rights were violated when the police searched her vehicle and person. With respect to the search of her vehicle, it was both incidental to a lawful arrest based on reasonable grounds, and with the belief that the police would find evidence related to the reason for the arrest. With respect to the strip search of her person, there was evidence to support the possibility of Ms. Eremenko hiding drugs in her vagina. Not only did a credible informant state this as a possibility, but the patterns of her attendance and actions in the DTES were consistent with someone trafficking drugs. The experience of the police was that drug dealers often hide drugs on their person. If she was indeed trafficking, as the 12 days surveillance had suggested, and the drugs were not in her car, the drugs would most likely be on her person. [42] In addition to the evidence supporting the need for a strip search, the search complied with the test from Golden. It was authorized by a supervising officer, carried out at the police station, in a private and sanitary manner, by two officers of the same gender as the individual being searched. Given that Ms. Eremenko removed the drugs herself, there is nothing to suggest force more than necessary was used. The search was necessary to preserve evidence of trafficking that may have otherwise been disposed of. [43] With respect to Ms. Eremenko's s. 10(b) Charter claim, the evidence shows that Ms. Eremenko was initially prevented from speaking to a lawyer for safety and security concerns. Had Cst. Todd given Ms. Eremenko the opportunity to use a cell phone it is possible she could have called someone to enter the apartment and remove or damage evidence relevant to the arrest. Upon arrest she was offered the opportunity to speak to a lawyer with supervision but declined. Upon return to the Coquitlam detachment, it was necessary to carry out the strip search without allowing Ms. Eremenko to leave supervision as it may have been possible for her to dispose of the drugs supposed to be on her person. As such, Ms. Eremenko was not able to place a call in private until after the strip search was concluded. At that time, she was given access to Legal Aid. At no time did the police attempt to elicit evidence from Ms. Eremenko beyond what she had hidden in her person. I do not find her s. 10(b) rights to have been infringed upon given the officers' belief that Ms. Eremenko needed to undergo a strip search. Mr. Rezaei's ss. 8 and 9 Charter Infringement Allegations [44] Mr. Rezaei submits his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights were violated during the police search of his vehicle and person. His arrest was lawful and based on reasonable grounds. The search of his vehicle was conducted incidental to his arrest and with the belief that officers would find evidence related to his arrest. The search of his person was conducted incidental to arrest for the purpose of protecting officer safety and finding evidence related to the arrest. It was a simple pat down search. There was no violation of Mr. Rezaei's ss.8 and 9 Charter rights. [45] A search warrant was issued authorizing a search of apartment 2307, of 298 Glen Drive, Coquitlam B.C. which was not challenged. [46] As a result of my findings on the combined voir dire, the fruits of the searches of the accused persons, vehicles and apartment, will be admitted into evidence in the trial. "Jenkins J." Schedule "A" DATE SURVEILLANCE OBSERVATIONS DESCRIBED BY CPL SHARMA Nov. 21, 2013 · Surveillance established at 2978 Glenn Drive at approximately 9:00 am · Observed Mr. Rezaei driving black BMW 704NSW from 2978 Glenn Drive to a pharmacy on Glenn Drive. Vehicle proceeded westbound through Coquitlam in area of Barnett Highway. Belief About Investigation: · "It was progressing, we had made a start corroborating information provided" in the sense that Mr. Rezaei was "positively associated" with the BMW and with 2978 Glenn Drive. Nov 22, 2013 · Cst. Sharma attended 2978 Glenn Dr. and spoke to a property manager. He viewed a tenant list of 2978 Glenn Drive, and confirmed that Mr. Saviz Rezaei and Ms. Debra Eremenko were the residents of apartment 2307 at 2978 Glenn Drive. · Surveillance was established at 2978 Glenn Dr. at 8:20 am · 8:25 - Cst. Damiani observed the BMW in stall 313 of underground parkade at 2978 Glenn Dr. The Lexus was observed in stall 385. · These two target vehicles departed from the target residence to the DTES. Mr. Rezaei drove the BMW, Ms. Eremenko drove the Lexus. The vehicles drove in a "convoy type of fashion" to the DTES. They appeared to be driving in a group. They were in "constant close proximity with each other. They wouldn't go past a traffic light and be separated by an intersection." · The Lexus entered a multilevel parked at 160 Water Street at 12:25 pm. The BMW parked a on a street "further down" from where the parkade was. · The Lexus departed the parkade at 2:50 pm, driven by Eremenko. Belief About Investigation: · "Believed there was further corroboration of the information provided by Cst. Doug Spencer" because Rezaei and Eremenko were seen departing in the target vehicles from 2978 Glenn Drive, and driving in a convoy-fashion together from 2978 Glenn Drive to the DTES". Was "consistent with information provided to the RCMP". Nov 26, 2013 · Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko were "associated" to unit 2307 · 1721 hrs- Cst. Koster observed an "unknown female" come up the elevator and use keys to get into Unit 307. · 2023 hours - Cst. Dulay observed an unknown female, Caucasian, 5'8", medium build, leave unit 2307 with a brown shoulder purse, talking on the phone. · 2032 hours - Cst. Dulay saw an unknown male, 5'11 ", black hair, and medium build, go into unit 2307. · 2034 hours - Cst. Dulay saw Mr. Rezaei in a dark t-shirt come out of unit 2307 and walk towards elevator. · 2052 hours- Cst. Dulay saw an unknown female go back to apartment 2307 with two pizzas, say "how are you" to someone inside. Belief About Investigation: · "It was still progressing" and they corroborated the information "the Coquitlam RCMP had received, that is that the occupants of Unit 2307 were associated to the vehicles, and those occupants were the same that were travelling to the DTES." Nov 27, 2013 · 1558 hours - Cst. Koster observed the Lexus (target vehicle) parked in the underground lot of 2978 Glenn Dr. · 1653 hours - Cst. Koster observed an unknown blonde female with a small dog go into apartment 2307. · 1742 hours - Cst. Wakeling observed the BMW (target vehicle) drive into the underground parking garage driven by Mr. Rezaei · 1747 hours - Koster observed Mr. Rezaei enter unit #2307 wearing a black baseball cap and carrying a plastic bag. Belief About Investigation: · This day's surveillance "further corroborated the information to date" because Mr. Rezaei and a female believed to be Ms. Eremenko came in and out of apartment 2307, Mr. Rezaei was associated to the black BMW, and their "residency was corroborated or substantiated by investigators." Nov 28, 2013 · The surveillance team observed the BMW bring driven away from 2978 Glenn Drive by a woman who they "believed to be Ms. Eremenko". The BMW went to several locations in Surrey. The target was lost and surveillance was redirected to 2978 Glenn Drive in Coquitlam. · 1734 hours - Cst. Dulay observed the Lexus return to the parkade at 2978 Glenn Drive, driven by Ms. Rezaei Belief About Investigation: · Mr. Rezaei was also associated to the brown Lexus, the other target vehicle, and "further corroborated Rezaei's association to 2978 Glenn Drive". Nov 29, 2013 · Surveillance was established at 2978 Glenn Drive. · Mr. Rezaei was driving the BMW, Ms. Eremenko driving the Lexus. They drove from 2978 Glenn Drive to DTES · They drove in a convoy style, in tandem, within visual sight of one another, never separated by a traffic light. · The two "met up in the DTES". At 1213 Cst. Wiley observed BCLP 881 RRR (Lexus) north on Cambie St. from Dunsmuir. · The BMW entered a parkade on Cambie St. and West Cordova St. at 12:20 hours. · 1223 hours - Cst. Dulay observed Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko walk towards the Lexus. Mr. Rezaei obtained a black vest from the backseat of the Lexus and put it on. · 1225 hours - Mr. Rezaei walked away, Ms. Eremenko drove the Lexus towards the Water Street Exit. · Mr. Rezaei departed East on foot. Ms. Eremenko drove the Lexus back to Coquitlam. · On her way, Ms. Eremenko stopped at the Real Canadian Superstore complex located on Westwood St. and Lougheed highway in Coquitlam. · Ms. Eremenko went to a tanning studio in that shopping complex. · At 1416 hours - CpI. Jeff Waddell conducted a dual purpose traffic stop with her and confirmed her identity as Ms. Debra Lee Eremenko DOB April 22, 1976, and she was the registered owner of the brown Lexus. Belief About Investigation: · "I took away that once again it was corroboration of information received by the Coquitlam RCMP from Cst. Doug Spencer. Once again had Rezaei and Eremenko departing 2978 Glenn Drive, using their vehicles, both target vehicles, the BMW, the Lexus, driving in a tandem convoy fashion, from Coquitlam to the DTES. Further repetition of the practice of the Lexus going into the parkade at 160 Water St. in Vancouver, a meeting between Eremenko and Rezaei, and then Rezaei departing towards the area of the DTES, east of the parkade, and Ms. Eremenko departing from the parkade back towards Coquitlam, to me that corroborated the information where it was stated that Rezaei and Eremenko supplied the dealers on the DTES on a routine and regular basis with ounces at a time of drugs. To me, it progressed the investigation forward, in the sense it further developed their pattern of behavior that was consistent with the information provided to the Coquitlam RCMP on Nov. 22." Dec 3, 2013 · Surveillance established at 1242 hours · 1327 hours Cst. Wiley observed Lexus arrive in underground parkade at 2978 Glenn Drive Belief About Investigation: · This day added "nothing significant" except associating the Lexus to 2978 Glenn Drive because it "arriv[ed] in the parking lot once again". Dec 4, 2013 · Surveillance established at 0900 hours at 2978 Glenn Drive · 1200 hours - Mr. Rezaei came out of underground 2978 Glenn Drive, parked on the sidewalk and waited for the Lexus to come out. Once Ms. Eremenko came out of the parkade in her Lexus, "and was directly behind the BMW, they proceeded en route towards their path of travel towards the DTES of Vancouver." · 1207-1230 hours, Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko again departed 2978 Glenn Drive and travelled to the DTES. They drove in tandem style. · Ms. Eremenko "appeared to be extremely nervous and was exhibiting behavior that I deemed to be counter surveillance tactics or techniques" "I believed that she believed that the police or some people were watching her". · Ms. Eremenko had previously, or usually, "appeared to be purposeful in her demeanor." On this day she was "curious about what was going on around her, head on a swivel, walking around." · At 1238 hours, BMW was seen parked on Level 4 of parkade. · At 1239 hours, the Lexus arrived, parked on Level 4 at 1240. · At 1243 hours, Ms. Eremenko was seen retrieving a black duffle bag from the Lexus. She walked over to another parked car and disappeared around a pillar · At 1248 hours, Ms. Eremenko returns towards the Lexus, and "is seen departing the Lexus carrying a black backpack and a purse on her left shoulder." · At 1256 hours, CpI. Sharma observed Ms. Eremenko walk towards the elevator on Level 4, on the phone. She appeared nervous and waiting to use the elevator, "does not want any other person in her space." · Ms. Eremenko entered the elevator lobby area. An Unknown Male arrived in the same lobby, then Ms. Eremenko walked back into the parkade. Once that person used the elevator, Eremenko returned to the elevator lobby. · At 1300 hours, observed Ms. Eremenko "looking at people walking by, appeared nervous". · At 1304 hours, Ms. Eremenko was observed driving the Lexus out of the parkade. · Unclear what time this happened, but also: Eremenko exited the parkade and "drove around the city block in what I refer to as a 'squaring the block.' What I mean is you drive down a block, turn right, drive another block, turn right again, drive that block, and turn right once more." Known to CpI. Sharma as a counter-surveillance technique. Ms. Eremenko was also "stopped right in the middle of the street. This is a familiar and observable technique I have seen a number of times that people will use to see if others also stop immediately behind them. So surveillance was terminated that day..." Belief About Investigation: · "Believed the investigation was still progressing towards further development of the behavior patterns of the two people involved in trafficking drugs from Coquitlam to DTES. It further corroborated information provided by Cst. Doug Spencer. It provided a further pattern of behavior from Nov. 21st to Dec. 4th, that behavior being Rezaei and Eremenko departed their apartment at 2879 Glenn Drive in their vehicles, drove in tandem fashion, convoy style fashion, from their apartment all the way to DTES. Once in DTES, they would meet, then Rezaei would separate and proceed alone, and Eremenko would return to Coquitlam." · Also, his observation of the BMW waiting for the Lexus to leave the parkade at 2978 Glenn Drive "not cemented but confirmed to me the idea that they absolutely had to be in close contact or proximity to each other, not be out of visual contact with one another." · The counter surveillance behavior of Ms. Eremenko also "reinforced and substantiated" his belief that Eremenko was a party to drug trafficking from 2978 Glenn Drive and that she had brought drugs from 2978 Glenn Drive, and that since she was in possession of drugs she wanted to avoid detection by police, she was nervous and therefore employed counter-surveillance techniques. Dec 5, 2013 · Surveillance established at 9:23 am at 2978 Glenn Drive. · Mr. Rezaei drove the BMW and Ms. Eremenko drove Lexus. They drove in tandem style to DTES and parked in the parkade at 160 Water Street. The Lexus was observed in Vancouver at 1139 hours. · 1146 hours - Ms. Eremenko exited the Lexus. She walked through the parkade carrying a backpack. She exited the stairwell at 1150 hours onto Cordova, past Abbott, North side of street carrying a black backpack and purse. · 5 minutes later, Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko were observed together outside of the BMW on the north side of Carrall St. Ms. Eremenko was not wearing a jacket and got into the driver's seat. Mr. Rezaei opened the trunk, put on dark clothing (Ed Hardy style hat, jacket with a fur hood.) The backpack was not seen on either of them. · Ms. Eremenko drove back to Coquitlam. At 1300 hours, the BMW was observed in Stall 313 of 2978 Glenn Drive, Ms. Eremenko walked away from it carrying clear plastic bags. · Mr. Rezaei walked away. At 1201 hours, Mr. Rezaei exited Waves coffee, left a coffee cup on a pillar. · 1220 hours - Mr. Rezaei was spotted on the North East corner of Hastings/Carroll, with his hood up talking to numerous people · Over the next few hours, Mr. Rezaei made multiple errands to the Pigeon Park area. He would leave for 1-5 minutes at a time and return to NE corner of Carrall and Hastings. He interacted with "too many [people] to count". · 1329 hours, Cst. Damiani observed Mr. Rezaei conduct a hand to hand ("HTH") transaction with an unidentified male, "consistent with drug trafficking." · Mr. Rezaei then conducted two more hand to hand transactions. "One with a male in a black jacket, one with a female in a brown jacket. Belief About Investigation: · "As from the day prior, it further substantiated my belief that Rezaei and Eremenko were transporting drugs from their apartment at 2307 - 2978 Glenn Drive, on their person, travelling in vehicles, their association to target vehicles. That they drove their vehicles in a convoy tandem manner form Coquitlam to Vancouver, they met in the DTES. They would meet briefly in the DTES. Rezaei would continue on to DTES, corner at Abbott and Main Street. Eremenko left. This brought the investigation to further corroborate info received, specifically was Rezaei and Eremenko supplied drugs to the DTES, that they reloaded dealers, that they did it regularly, that they worked together, and so on Dec. 5th, seeing Rezaei on the street corner, in the DTES, brought the investigation to a more advanced stage than it had been prior." Dec 6, 2013 · 0915 hours - surveillance established. Both target vehicles were in the underground parkade at 2978 Glenn Drive. · 0923 hours - Ms. Eremenko was observed entering suite 2307 with a dog. · 1029 hours - Ms. Eremenko was observed leaving suite 2307 with two bags, including a black backpack. She drove the Lexus towards the DTES of Vancouver. · 1041 hours - Mr. Rezaei came out of suite 2307. Drove BMW to DTES of Vancouver. He and Ms. Eremenko drove in a "tandem driving style" from Coquitlam to DTES. · 1125 hours - the BMW was parked on North side of West Cordova between Abbott and Carrall Street. · The Lexus was observed to be parked on the West side of Cordova between Abbott and Carrall, "few vehicles behind the BMW". · 1133 hours - Ms. Eremenko got out of Lexus with black backpack and brown purse. Mr. Rezaei got out of BMW and walked to Eremenko. · 1134 hours - both walked towards BMW and stood on sidewalk, both leaned into the driver's seat. · 1135 hours - Mr. Rezaei entered Army and Navy store. · 1137 hours - Mr. Rezaei crossed Carrall St. on E. Hastings St. · 1138 hours - Mr. Rezaei took "what appeared to be a white item in a bag from his right jacket pocket, looked at it, and returned it inside the pocket." The while item was believed to be cocaine. · 1140 hours - Cst. Dulay saw a black male at area of Pigeon Park - Abbott and Carrall and Hastings (UM1, black male between 40-50 years of age, white toque, white scarf, blue jacket, dark pants, dark working boots) "approach Rezaei and have a hand to hand transaction". · "The next observation I recall from Cst. Dulay during surveillance was that the male that I saw conducting hand to hand transactions and short duration visits on the corner of Cordova and Abbott was the same male that had been seen by Cst. Dulay to have met with Rezaei previous ... To have met with Rezaei and had a hand to hand transaction with this unknown male." · CpI. Sharma observed a male standing on SE corner of Abbott and Cordova. "This male was standing on the corner and people would come to this male. I observed two specific interactions between that male and another person and as I spoke yesterday about a HTH transaction, coupled with a short duration visit, I saw the first of two people come up to this unknown male, put their hand forward, the unknown male grasped whatever it was that was in this other person's hand, took it, then placed something else, cupped in the UM's hand, deposited it to the - I would call that person the customer's - hand. That exchange took less than 2-3 seconds. The black male remained on the street corner, while the customer departed. The second observation happened very soon thereafter. And it involved another person coming to the black male on the corner again of Cordova and Abbott in exactly similar circumstances of the HTH transaction. " · Subsequent, Mr. Rezaei was observed on the corner of Cordova and Abbott. He was observed meeting up with Unknown Male 2, described as a white male wearing a red and white Adidas jacket. Mr. Rezaei gave him cigarettes and appeared to be giving instructions to Unknown Male 3. · At 1204 hours - "Followed up with a subsequent interaction with another Unknown Male, Unknown Male 4, described to be a Caucasian male, that was qualified as a HTH transaction between Rezaei and Unknown Male 4." · "At 1207 hours, by Cst. Dulay and Montpetit, another hand to hand transaction with unknown male 5". · "12:16 hours. Dulay and Montpetit observed a hand to hand transaction with Rezaei and Unknown Male 6."... "After the interaction Unknown Male took whatever it was from Rezaei and placed it into his own pocket." · Mr. Rezaei interacted with other unknown persons on the corner · At 1223 hours, "a number of other observations that go on to talk about unknown males at that location having interaction with other unknown males, qualified as hand to hand transactions." Belief About Investigation: · "It further developed and progressed my belief that Rezaei and Eremenko were trafficking in a controlled substance, and this further corroborated the information that the Coquitlam RCMP had received on Nov. 20, 2013. In effect, at this point, seeing what I had personally seen on surveillance, and from what other officers had also seen and advised me of, it was credible in my mind to believe the information that I had received on Nov. 20th, and established in my mind the belief that Rezaei and Eremenko were transporting drugs from their apartment in Coquitlam to the DTES, supplying dealers and then overseeing the operation." · This was because their activities "were consistent with what I believed to be drug trafficking" meaning the hand to hands, and the transportation from their apartment in Coquitlam to Vancouver, "all was corroborative with information passed on Nov. 20th, and was consistent, and demonstrated a consistent pattern from Nov. 21st to December 6th". Dec 10, 2013 · Surveillance established at 9:35 at 2978 Glenn Drive. · Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko met up in the parkade of 2978 Glenn Drive inside one of the target vehicles. Ms. Eremenko returned to the apartment. Mr. Rezaei drove the Lexus from Coquitlam to the DTES. Was observed parked on Cordova Street, West of Carrall at 12:48 · At 1305 hours - Mr. Rezaei was observed on the corner of Carrall and West Hastings talking to a number of males · At 1315 hours - surveillance was terminated or shortly thereafter Belief About Investigation: · This day "further developed and provided further consistency to the ongoing behavior of Rezaei and Eremenko" ... "specifically departing 2978 Glenn Drive, going to the DTES, and what I would describe as taking up a post on a corner in the DTES overlooking a drug trafficking operation." Dec 11, 2013 · 0900 hours - surveillance was established at 2989 Glenn Drive. · 0944 hours - Ms. Eremenko was observed coming out of the apartment carrying a purse, then back at the apartment with grocery bags and a "little white bag." · 1020 hours - Ms. Eremenko was observed exiting the apartment with a full grocery bag, on a cell phone, wearing a black hoodie with a white patch and black pants · 1045 hours - Ms. Eremenko was observed outside walking her dogs, then going to a hair salon. · 1115 hours - Ms. Eremenko was back at the apartment with the dogs. · 1200 hours - Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko left the apartment. · 1201 hours - Mr. Rezaei going towards Lexus · Ms. Eremenko walks away on Atlantic Avenue, a perimeter street to the apartment. Belief About Investigation: · This day "affirmed further that Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko had knowledge and control of Unit 2307 - 2978 Glenn Drive." He believed it to be their apartment or place they frequented as they were "coming and going from the apartment on a regular basis." Dec 13, 2013 · Investigational briefing at approximately 0800 hours led by CpI. Sharma. Outlined that Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko were "arrestable" for PPT. · Surveillance began at 1000 hours at 2978 Glenn Drive. · Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko departed 2307- 2978 Glenn Drive and went to each of their respective vehicles. The Lexus (driven by Eremenko) came out of the parkade and "parked in a strange manner on the sidewalk, blocking part of the loading bay" at 1225. · Mr. Rezaei came out of underground. There was a "brief exchange and conversation or interaction I should say" where Ms. Eremenko "appeared to have a rolled up jacket and appeared to give it to Rezaei through the window while Rezaei was sitting in the driver's seat." · When Ms. Eremenko exited the parkade she appeared to be texting, and holding a phone up to her ear. Then she went to the rear driver's side door, grabbed a jacket or sweater, rolled it into a "tube style shape", held it and waiting at the entrance to the parkade. When Mr. Rezaei drove out, Mr. Eremenko appeared to converse with him and "dipped her shoulder" inside the BMW where Mr. Rezaei was sitting. Then the officer no longer saw the sweater or jacket. · Next he observed Mr. Rezaei and Ms. Eremenko departing in vehicles. · Overheard the on radio that they were driving West to Port Coquitlam approaching Guildford Way · Next he overheard they were proceeding Westbound on Murray Street, a funnel to the Barnett Highway. He directed their arrest at approximately 1230 hours. Belief About Investigation · Believed if they were going to Vancouver that they had drugs on their person. "If they were engaged in the consistent pattern of driving to Vancouver, it was reasonable in my mind to presume that arrest at that time would be the perfect set of circumstances and would be consistent and reasonable to suggest they were engaging in the same type of activity that is trafficking."