Alleged British Columbia drug trafficker challenges $334,000 seizure

A British Columbia man accused of drug trafficking says police violated his rights when they arrested him and seized more than $334,000 belonging to him – at least in part – from a Vancouver apartment.

As such, Sean Christopher Norgan is challenging B.C.'s Director of Civil Forfeiture's claim to money in which, according to a recent court ruling, Norgan “claims a proprietary interest.”

On May 31, Norgan, with the help of his criminal lawyer Tony Paisana, got the court to first consider his allegations of Charter violations during his arrest, before considering the director's request for forfeiture.

British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Alan Ross agreed with Norgan.

As the forfeiture case moves forward, Norgan will also face trial on four criminal charges against him: possession for the purpose of distribution; possession of property obtained by crime; and two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking. Norgan is presumed innocent until the court rules on the matter.

Norgan alleges two Charter violations. First, Vancouver police officers opened Canada Post packages they had intercepted at a residence allegedly linked to Norgan, but without a warrant. The packages contained psilocybin mushrooms and prompted further investigation, including a search warrant at an apartment on Beach Avenue where Norgan was arrested – the second alleged Charter violation.

The director's complaint against Norgan also names Leisa Jina, Isaac Conan Ho and Dennis Alin Tabarana as defendants. In addition to the $334,890 seized, the director is also targeting a Porsche, a Camaro and a Mercedes Benz. Norgan has no interest in vehicles.

The manner in which criminal and civil (confiscation) cases are conducted is described by Justice Ross as a “nascent area of ​​law”.

British Columbia's civil forfeiture regime allows the government to seize property if the director can prove that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is the proceeds of crime or instrumentalities of crime, even if no criminal conviction is obtained. As such, the regime is controversial among civil liberties advocates.

Similarly, unexplained wealth orders are seen by some civil liberties advocates and criminal defense attorneys as excessive state power.

[email protected]