1. The Charges

[1] Sadyk Sadikov is charged with 18 offences that include possession of MDMA, methamphetamine, heroin, ketamine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, possession of the proceeds of crime, possession of a loaded firearm and ammunition without being the holder of a licence, knowing he was not the holder of a registration certificate, careless storage of a firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited from so doing by court order.

[2] All of the above items were found in the second floor apartment at 306 Adelaide Street West that was subject to a police search.

2. The Evidence

[3] A number of police officers and the landlord of the building testified on behalf of the Crown. The evidence presented by the Defence consisted of a statement made by Ms. Harding, the lessee of the unit where the search warrant was executed, just after she was apprehended by police.

[4] An undercover police operation took place at Club 338. Between June 6^th^ and October 20^th^, undercover officers observed drug trafficking and use in the presence of security and other Club staff at Club 338 located at 338 Adelaide Street West.

[5] Undercover Officer Jaafar bought $200 worth of cocaine or crack cocaine four times from a man who called himself “Alex”. The transactions took place at Club 338 located at 338 Adelaide Street West. Officer Jaafar identified Alex through a photo lineup as Sadyk Sadikov. Mr. Sadikov admits he is Alex. Officer Jaafar never asked to buy any drugs except for cocaine from Mr. Sadikov.

[6] According to Officer Henkel who was in charge of this investigation, Mr. Sadikov’s mugshot and later colour photos were put up in the police office and could be seen by everyone in the office as this was an “open concept” office with nine or ten desks in it. Officers Onzuka and Evelyn shared that office.

[7] On August 11, 2008, Alex told Officer Jaafar that “he kept the drugs at home” and that he “lived close by”[^1] Club 338. 338 Adelaide Street West is about 100 metres from 306 Adelaide Street West.

[8] On September 5^th^, 2008 sometime before 2:13 a.m., Officer Jaafar contacted Alex and told him she wanted to buy the same quantity of cocaine as last time ($200) and he told her he would see her at Club 338. He said he lived just around the corner.

[9] At approximately 4:04 a.m., Officer Jaafar contacted Alex on his cell phone number again to see if he was still coming to Club 338. Alex apologized and told her he had been playing with his two pit-bull dogs. When he returned to the Club, Alex showed Officer Jaafar photos of his pit-bull dogs on his cellphone.

[10] When questioned about this, Officer Henkel testified that, “My understanding from what I wrote was he was explaining to her the reason for the delay and that he was playing with his dogs.”

[11] Mr. Sadikov arrived back at Club 338 shortly after the conversation at 4:04 a.m. He showed her pictures of the dogs on his cellular telephone.

[12] On October 6, Officer Jaafar arrived at Club 338 at approximately 1:50 a.m. Officer Jaafar again ordered drugs. Mr. Sadikov said he would go and get her $200 worth of cocaine as “I keep it at home”.[^2] Officer Hominuk took pictures of Alex leaving Club 338.

[13] Mr. Sadikov left Club 338 at 3:07 a.m. and lit a cigarette out front of Club 338. Mr. Sadikov wore a black hoodie (with symbols that resembled fleurs de lys) and a black baseball cap. This information was passed on to Officer Henkel over the police radio.

[14] Detective Henkel testified that at approximately 3:12 a.m., he saw the person he identified as Mr. Sadikov walk eastbound on Adelaide Street West and enter 306 Adelaide Street West. Officer Henkel made his observations from the other side of the street. He testified that there were very few people on the street at that time of night. Officer Henkel testified he saw “his [Mr. Sadikov] hand reaching towards the upper portion of the door lock” where the key hole was. He testified that for these reasons, he thought Mr. Sadikov used a key.

[15] Officer Evelyn did not see the male use a key.

[16] Officer Henkel said the clothing and the baseball cap of the person photographed outside Club 338 was the same as that of the person he saw enter the building.

[17] At 3:56 a.m. Officer Jaafar advised that Alex had sold her the drugs.

[18] On October 15^th^, Officer Hominuk saw two pit-bulls in the window of the upper floor apartment at 306 Adelaide Street West.

[19] Officer Onzuka testified that on the evening of October 15th, he was in his vehicle with Officer Evelyn when he saw a man sitting on the steps of 306 Adelaide Street West with the dogs. Officer Evelyn said, “There’s the guy and his dogs” and told him to take a photo. Because he was driving, he could not take a photo and by the time he parked, the man was gone. Officer Evelyn also testified that shortly after 3:38 a.m. he was in the front passenger seat of a car driven by Officer Onzuka when he saw a white male with dark hair, a thin beard with two dogs and said to Officer Onzuka, “That’s the guy. Get some pictures.”

[20] Officer Onzuka’s notes provide that minutes later he saw, “2 pit-bull like dogs” hanging out of the 2^nd^ floor window of the second floor apartment of 306 Adelaide Street West. He took a photo of the dogs which he sent to Officer Henkel on October 15^th^.

[21] On October 15^th^ at 8:31 p.m. Officer Evelyn sent a JPEG photo to Officer Henkel and advised him that he believed the white male with the brown T-shirt was the target (Mr. Sadikov). Later that day, Officer Evelyn called Officer Henkel to tell him he had seen the target [Sadikov].

[22] On October 17, police received authorization to conduct a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.C. 1996, c. 19, (CDSA) warrant to search for and seize controlled substances (including, but not limited to cocaine), packaging materials, debt lists, and police buy-money in the second floor apartment at 306 Adelaide Street West. Police were authorized to do a nighttime search and conduct a dramatic entry to the premises. The warrant was issued based on the representation that Mr. Sadikov was a drug dealer who had illegal drugs for the purpose of trafficking at the premises.

[23] On October 20^th^, in the hours leading up to the execution of the search warrant, police saw Mr. Sadikov leave 306 Adelaide Street West and enter 308 Adelaide Street West. (The door to 306 also provides access to 308.[^3]) Mr. Sadikov then left 308 Adelaide Street West and sometime later entered 302 Adelaide Street West. Mr. Sadikov entered a vehicle with an Asian male and came out empty handed.

[24] At 1:26 a.m. Officer Evelyn saw a white male wearing a T-shirt, jeans and a brush cut, weighing approximately 140 pounds, use keys to enter 306 Adelaide Street West.

[25] At 1:28 a.m. the person Officer Evelyn believed to be Mr. Sadikov left the front of 306 Adelaide Street West. He looked back at 308 Adelaide Street West. He was approximately six feet tall, 200 to 245 pounds, heavy set with a long sleeved shirt, dark trousers, a dark beard and hair.

[26] At 2:10 a.m. Officer Evelyn testified that a shorter white male went into 306 Adelaide Street West. At 2:51 a.m. the person Officer Evelyn believed to be Mr. Sadikov entered a vehicle with a package and came out of the vehicle empty handed. At 2:59 a.m. he went westbound on Adelaide Street. At 3:12 a.m. he and two others walked toward Club 338.

[27] Officer Jaafar testified that she texted Mr. Sadikov to arrange a drug purchase at 2:50 a.m. on October 20. He called her to say he was coming and arrived shortly thereafter. He was wearing a baseball cap and a long sleeved shirt. Mr. Sadikov entered Club 338 and sold Officer Jaafar $200 worth of cocaine. The cocaine looked hard like crack cocaine. It weighed 2.32 grams which was less than the other three transactions. Mr. Sadikov told the officer that he knew this was a little less than she agreed to purchase and that he would “get her next time”. During the fourth sale on October 20^th^, he also told her he had a puppy.

[28] At 3:20 a.m. a female left 306 Adelaide Street West walking a brown pit-bull dog returning ten minutes later. She left again with a black pit-bull dog. She walked eastbound and then returned to the upper unit of 306 Adelaide Street West.

Items Found During the Execution of the Search Warrant

[29] On October 20, 2008 at 4:00 a.m. the police made a dramatic unannounced entry and executed the warrant to search the second floor apartment at 306 Adelaide Street West. They found two pit-bull dogs in the apartment.

[30] Expert evidence confirms that drug dealers often possess a variety of drugs to meet the needs of their customers. Customers at Club 338, which Mr. Sadikov frequented, consumed a variety of different types of drugs, as discovered at the time of the execution of the warrant at Club 338 on October 20^th^.

[31] Upon execution of the warrant at the second floor apartment at 306 Adelaide Street, police found white residue on the stove top in the apartment. No cocaine was identified in the apartment.

[32] A black knapsack was found open on the chair in the living room. Protruding from the knapsack police found a package that contained over one kilogram of methamphetamine/MDMA pills. Heroin and ketamine were also found in the open knapsack.

[33] A black digital scale was found on the coffee table. The scale weighs items from .1 gram to 1000 grams.

[34] It is agreed that the appearance of the stove burner and the white powder on it, is consistent with crack cocaine production. The stove top was not tested for the presence of cocaine or crack cocaine.

[35] It is agreed that the product sold to Officer Jaafar on October 20^th^ appears to be crack cocaine.

[36] Marijuana and MDMA were found in a closed jewelry box at the top of the stairs to the apartment. Marijuana was found in a drawer in a shelving unit in the kitchen along with two envelopes addressed to Mr. Sadikov. MDMA/methamphetamine and ketamine pills were found on a table beside the bed in the bedroom.

[37] A loaded Smith and Wesson firearm was found in plain view beside a computer on a table in the kitchen. Neither Mr. Sadikov nor Ms. Harding had a licence to possess a firearm. Ammunition was found throughout the apartment: six in the handgun, two on a shelf in the kitchen and thirty one in a box at the top of the stairs. Mr. Sadikov was bound by a section 109 order issued by McCombs J. not to possess a weapon.

[38] $3,050 Cdn was found in a box on the kitchen counter. The bills were bound with women’s hairbands.

[39] Approximately 39,000 individual doses of drugs were found in the apartment. The value is estimated at $675,000.

[40] Several articles of men’s clothing were found throughout the apartment: men’s size XXL trousers and underwear were spread over a chair in the kitchen near the bathroom, a jacket, several shirts and T-shirts and another pair of men’s trousers were also found in a closet of the apartment. The clothes were Mr. Sadikov’s size and they were urban wear clothing, the style worn by Mr. Sadikov.

[41] A second warrant was executed at Club 338. Mr. Sadikov was arrested. When police did a pat down search they did not find anything on his person.

Harding Statement

[42] Ms. Harding was unable to testify for medical reasons.

[43] Just after police made their dynamic entry to execute the search warrant, on October 20^th^, Ms. Harding was observed slipping down a step at 308 Adelaide Street West. She was stopped, handcuffed and then questioned.

[44] She gave a statement to police. She said she was the tenant in the upper unit of 306 Adelaide Street West (that was about to be searched). She said, “My boyfriend Alex used to live here but I kicked him out a week ago.” She went on to say, “I see him all the time he has a business downstairs.”

[45] Hers was a spontaneous utterance made seconds after she was arrested and handcuffed. It was also a statement made against her own interest. As such, the statement was entered for the truth of its contents.

Landlord Testimony

[46] Martin Zimmerman, the landlord of 302 to 310 Adelaide Street West confirmed that he was told by Mr. Sadikov and Ms. Harding that they were in a relationship.

[47] Ms. Harding leased the upper unit of 306 Adelaide Street West. Mr. Zimmerman assumed Mr. Sadikov had a key.

[48] The landlord testified that from time to time he observed Mr. Sadikov outside 306 Adelaide Street West. He knew Mr. Sadikov as Alex.

[49] He said Alex had two dogs that he kept in the upper unit at 306 Adelaide Street West. Mr. Sadikov told him the dogs were his. He recalls seeing Alex coming in and out of 306 Adelaide Street with the dogs. The landlord did not know of any other dogs in the building.

[50] He said Alex was renovating a basement unit at 302 Adelaide Street West which was to be used as a convenience store.

3. The Issues to be Decided

[51] The issue to be decided is whether Mr. Sadikov was in possession of any of the items seized.

[52] Section 4(3) of the Criminal Code provides that a person has something in his possession when it is in his actual possession or has it in a place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person. When two or more people, with the knowledge and consent of the rest have something in their possession, it is deemed to be in the custody and possession of each of them.

[53] The court must decide whether, after considering the entire body of evidence, taken together, the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Sadikov was in possession of the drugs, money and/or loaded firearm and ammunition.

[54] The allegation in this case is that Mr. Sadikov was in joint possession or constructive possession of the items. Possession requires knowledge and some control over the items. Joint possession also requires consent. (R. v. Pham, 2005 CanLII 44671 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 5127 (C.A.) at paras. 13-18, aff’d 2006 SCC 26, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 940.)

[55] In R. v. Grey, 1996 CanLII 35 (ON CA), [1996] 89 O.A.C. 394 (C.A.) the court held that occupancy alone is not sufficient to support knowledge of the existence of drugs. In that case there was no direct evidence of knowledge, the apartment was rented by the co-accused, other persons frequented the apartment, and the accused was not a permanent occupant, no witness confirmed the accused knew about the cocaine, the drugs were hidden, and the case rested on the accused’s regular occupancy of the apartment and on the presence of his clothing and other belongings in the bedroom where the drugs were found. The court held that the circumstantial evidence did not support a finding that the accused had knowledge of the crack cocaine.

[56] In Rex v. Colvin and Gladue (1942), 1942 CanLII 245 (BC CA), 78 C.C.C. 282, 58 B.C.R. 204 (B.C.C.A.) the Court held that mere acquiescence does not establish control.

[57] In R. v. Terrence, 1983 CanLII 51 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 357, 4 C.C.C. (3d) 193 a passenger who accepted a ride in a stolen automobile with a thief, was charged with possession of stolen property. His conviction was quashed as the Crown failed to establish that the accused exercised any measure of control over the automobile.

[58] Where the evidence is entirely circumstantial as it is in this case, the court must be satisfied that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is that the accused is guilty. (R. v. Griffin, 2009 SCC 28, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 42 at para. 33.)

[59] However, in R. v. Medina, 2010 ONCA 262, [2010] O.J. No. 1415 (C.A.) every separate item of circumstantial evidence need not be determinative of the accused’s guilt in order to decide that the only reasonable inference is guilt. Instead, the decision should be based on consideration of the entire body of circumstantial evidence before the court.

[60] In Medina, there was no direct evidence identifying the accused as the person who sublet the apartment or any direct evidence that he occupied it within the time frame of the offence. However, the circumstantial evidence included the fact that the apartment sublease was in the accused’s name, access to the building required the use of keys, which were turned over to a person who identified himself as the accused, the accused’s expired identity documents were found in the apartment, his car was in the apartment’s parking space and was moved during the relevant time frame, and a key fob that permitted access to his car was found inside the apartment.

[61] In R. v. To (W.H.) (1992), 1992 CanLII 913 (BC CA), 16 B.C.A.C. 223, McEachern C.J.B.C held that:

While the circumstantial evidence in this case does not present the strongest case of control, I do not think it can be said that the inference drawn by the trial judge was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. In my view, the evidence in its totality is capable of founding a rational inference that the appellant exerted the requisite measure of control over the cocaine in question to support a finding of constructive possession.

The appellant was a regular occupant of the apartment, had a key, and knew of the presence of the cocaine. He had seen the scale on previous occasions. According to Mr. Nilsson, he held parties in the apartment at which, “once in a while”, he measured cocaine and sold it to his friends. As well, Mr. Nilsson said that the appellant had seen him use cocaine when he “was partying on occasion”, so the appellant was present at some of these parties. The appellant knew the scale was used to measure cocaine – that is why he hid it from the police. Thus, in my view, the evidence as a whole supports a rational inference that Mr. Nilsson possessed the cocaine with the knowledge and consent of the appellant and, for the reasons described above, that the appellant had the necessary measure of control over it.

[62] In R. v. Sparling, [1988] O.J. No. 107 (Ont. H.C.) aff’d [1988] O.J. No. 1877 (C.A.), the court held that where narcotics are found in plain view in a common area of a residence, a scale is found in a bedroom apparently occupied by the accused and the accused apparently occupies the residence, the requisite knowledge may be inferred even without any direct knowledge.

[63] In R. v. Pham, 2005 CanLII 44671 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 5127, (O.C.A.) aff’d 2006 SCC 26, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 940 (S.C.C.) the majority of the Court of Appeal held that even if it were possible that someone else brought drugs into the premises during the accused’s absence, the following evidence confirmed her guilt:

a) the accused elected to use her home as a drug trafficking centre, and was a key figure in the trafficking scheme carried on in it;

b) she was the occupant of unit #4 although a second person moved in there with her;

c) the purse containing the drugs and the pink make-up bag containing the money were found in full view in a common area of the apartment;

d) the cloth purse and the make-up bag are consistent with the personal toiletries of the appellant and were found amidst her personal toiletries and make-up;

e) there was no evidence of any men's toiletries in the bathroom; and

f) the main bedroom was littered with woman's clothing, contained documents (including a passport) in Ms. Pham's name, and was the source of drug-related "dime bags" and cut up newspapers and grocery bags of the type used to wrap a 40 piece of crack cocaine.

The court concluded that, “the circumstantial evidence supported as the only logical inference a consistent awareness of and participation in, all that occurred in her home” and “more than a quiescent or passive knowledge of the drugs, as well as an element of control over them”.

4. Analysis

[64] In this case, there is no direct evidence that Mr. Sadikov was in possession of the items seized during execution of the search warrant on October 20^th^ as:

a) no witnesses saw him in possession of the drugs, gun, ammunition and money in the apartment;

b) no DNA or other forensic evidence links Mr. Sadikov to the drugs, guns, money or drug paraphernalia;

c) he was not in the apartment when the items were found; and

d) no drugs were found on his person at the time of his arrest.

[65] Moreover, there is evidence that several people had been at 306 Adelaide Street West in the hours before the search warrant was executed.

[66] However, for the following reasons, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Sadikov lived in the second floor apartment at 306 Adelaide Street West until October 13^th^ and continued to frequent the apartment up to and including the day the search warrant was executed:

a) Mr. Sadikov told Officer Jaafar he lived near and around the corner from 338 Adelaide Street West. Ms. Harding told police that Mr. Sadikov lived with her in the upper unit of 306 Adelaide Street west until October 13^th^. It is admitted that until October 13^th^, Mr. Sadikov lived with Ms. Harding in the second floor apartment, 306 Adelaide Street West;

b) Mr. Sadikov told Officer Jaafar he had two pit-bull dogs. The landlord confirmed Mr. Sadikov had two dogs. The two pit-bull dogs were in the second floor apartment of 306 Adelaide Street West at the time the search warrant was executed;

c) On October 15^th^, Officer Evelyn told Officer Onzuka that he thought he saw the target (Mr. Sadikov) with his two dogs outside of 306 Adelaide Street.[^4];

d) Mr. Sadikov was seen going into 306 Adelaide Street West on October 20^th^. He later returned to Club 338 with cocaine to sell to the undercover officer;

e) there is no evidence that Mr. Sadikov had any reason to be at 306 or 308 Adelaide Street West other than to go into the upper unit leased by Ms. Harding where his dogs were staying and where he had been living. (The basement unit at 302 Adelaide Street West that he was converting to a convenience store was several doors over and serviced by a different entrance.[^5]); and

f) two letters addressed to Mr. Sadikov, two toothbrushes, several pairs of men’s extra-large trousers, underwear, sport shirts and a hoodie jacket the same style and size as those worn by Mr. Sadikov, were found in the apartment at the time of the search. The jacket had the same pattern as the pattern of a jacket he wore when Mr. Sadikov was photographed by police.[^6]

[67] For the following reasons, I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Sadikov had knowledge of the drugs and other items found in the apartment on October 20^th^:

a) Mr. Sadikov admits he was a drug dealer;

b) Mr. Sadikov told the officer he kept his drugs at home and that his home was near Club 338;

c) there is no dispute that his home until October 13^th^ was the second floor apartment at 306 Adelaide Street West;

d) he was seen by police going to 306 Adelaide Street West before conducting a drug transaction with an undercover officer on October 6^th^ and again on October 20^th^. There was no reason for him to be at 306 Adelaide Street West other than to be in the second floor apartment;

e) a huge quantity and variety of drugs was found worth approximately $675,000 along with money, a loaded firearm and ammunition. They were found in many different areas of the apartment which suggests it was not brought all at once; and

f) some of the drugs, the gun, and some drug paraphernalia were in plain view.

[68] The remaining question is whether Mr. Sadikov exercised some measure of control over the items found in the apartment.

[69] The Defence raises four points in support of her contention that Mr. Sadikov did not have the requisite control over the items in the apartment to be found guilty of possession of the items found in the apartment:

i. Ms. Harding was the sole lessee of the apartment;

ii. Mr. Sadikov had no key to the apartment on October 20^th^ when he was arrested and no officer saw him use a key to 306 Adelaide Street West or the second floor apartment at 306 Adelaide Street West after Ms. Harding claims she kicked him out of the apartment;

iii. the undercover officer only ever asked for cocaine and Mr. Sadikov only ever sold her cocaine and possibly crack cocaine. No cocaine or crack cocaine was identified in the apartment; and

iv. Ms. Harding made a spontaneous statement to police against her own interest that she had kicked Mr. Sadikov out of her apartment one week before the search warrant was executed (on October 13^th^).

[70] However, for the following reasons, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Sadikov continued to frequent and had knowledge of the items in the apartment and that he exercised a measure of control over those items in the apartment:

i. although Ms. Harding was the sole lessee of the apartment, she was also the sole lessee at the time they cohabited in the apartment (and he therefore had some measure of control over the apartment and its contents);

ii. although no key was found on Mr. Sadikov’s person when he was arrested, he had no key to any other premises upon his arrest. Ms. Harding was seen later leaving the apartment and therefore it is plausible that he did not need a key if she was already in the apartment. He continued to keep legal items there such as his clothes and his dogs;

iii. although the undercover officer only ever asked for cocaine and Mr. Sadikov only ever sold her cocaine and possibly crack cocaine, it is agreed that there was white powder on the stovetop that is consistent with crack cocaine production. Expert evidence confirms that drug dealers often possess a variety of drugs to meet the needs of their customers. Many different types of drugs were sold at the Club he frequented and sold drugs. Moreover, when Mr. Sadikov sold the cocaine to the undercover officer, he told her that he had not given her as much as she had ordered but would make it up to her next time, which suggests that he had run out of cocaine; and

iv. I reject the contention that Ms. Harding’s spontaneous statement to police that she had kicked Mr. Sadikov out of her apartment one week before means that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he had any control over the apartment and its contents. On the contrary:

a. Ms. Harding told police she continued to see Mr. Sadikov “all the time”, and did not say she no longer gave him any access to the apartment;

b. for reasons already indicated, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Sadikov did have access to the apartment on October 20^th^;

c. many items of clothing Mr. Sadikov’s size and style were found throughout the apartment. A second toothbrush was found in the bathroom;

d. there is no suggestion anyone else was alleged to be living there;

e. Mr. Sadikov told the officer he kept his drugs at home, which was at the apartment just one week before; and

f. a huge quantity of drugs and other illegal items were found in many areas of the apartment, some hidden and some in plain view.

[71] For these reasons, on the evidence presented to me as a whole, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only reasonable inference is that Mr. Sadikov had knowledge and some measure of control over the items found in the apartment. I therefore find Mr. Sadikov guilty on all counts.

Thorburn J.

Released: June 5, 2015

CITATION: R. v. Sadikov, 2015 ONSC 3653

COURT FILE NOS.: CR-14-90000125-000

DATE: 20150605

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

SADYK SADIKOV

JUDGMENT

Thorburn J.

Released: June 5, 2015

[^1]: Officer Jaafar police notes. [^2]: Officer Jaafar police notes. [^3]: The drawing produced at trial shows that access to the second floor apartment is obtained by entering the front entrance of 306 Adelaide Street West, entering a second door, going up a flight of stairs and the unit is on the left hand side at the top of the stairs. [^4]: Officer Evelyn was unsure at trial that the person he saw was Mr Sadikov. [^5]: The convenience store was under construction with trades attending to finish construction. [^6]: Exhibit 21

R. v. Sadikov, 2015 ONSC 3653

Case Summary

1. The Charges

2. The Evidence

Items Found During the Execution of the Search Warrant

Harding Statement

Landlord Testimony

3. The Issues to be Decided

4. Analysis

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Statutory Provisions 1

Legislation 2