Judge rejects bid to cross-examine police officer in Maple Ridge drug case, calls request a “fishing expedition”

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has rejected a defence attorney’s bid to cross-examine a police officer over a 2020 search of a Maple Ridge home, ruling the request amounted to a “fishing expedition.”

In a decision released March 23, Justice Miriam Maisonville ruled that Fraser David George Vickers’ defence had not met the legal threshold required to challenge the validity of the warrant carried out, which led to him being charged with two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

“There is nothing to suggest that the questioning would be anything other than a fishing expedition,” Maisonville said.

The case centres on a Sept.17, 2020 police search of a home on the 22300 block of 122 Ave. where investigators had conducted surveillance the day before obtaining judicial authorization.

According to court documents, an officer observed Vickers arriving at the residence and using a key to enter – a detail later included in the search-warrant request.

That observation became a focal point in the defence’s attempt to challenge the warrant.

Vickers’ lawyer sought permission to cross-examine the officer who made the observation, arguing the officer may not have actually seen a key and could have misinterpreted what occurred at the door.

The defence also suggested the object in question could have been something else, such as a vehicle key.

But the court found those arguments speculative.

Justice Maisonville noted the officer had confirmed, through Crown counsel, that he did in fact see Vickers use a key to enter the residence. The judge also pointed to photographic evidence showing Vickers hunched over the door lock with both hands engaged before entering – supporting the inference that a key was used.

The defence further argued the observation was significant because an earlier application for a search warrant had been denied the previous day, in part because police could not definitively link Vickers to the property.

The subsequent observation of him entering with a key helped establish that connection and led to the warrant being approved.

However, the court ruled that even if the defence could probe the officer’s observation, it was unlikely to produce evidence that would undermine the legal basis for the warrant.

Under past legal precedents, defence lawyers must show a “reasonable likelihood” that cross-examination will yield evidence of probative value when challenging a search warrant.

That test is intentionally narrow, balancing the right to make full answer and defence with the need to avoid unnecessary or prolonged proceedings, according to Maisonville, stating the defence had failed to meet that threshold.

The judge also emphasized that police officers preparing search warrant materials are entitled to rely on notes and observations provided by fellow officers, unless there is a clear indication those details are inaccurate or misleading.

The ruling means the defence will not be permitted to cross-examine the officer on his observations as part of the warrant challenge, allowing the trial to proceed without that line of attack.