guns for freedom › other police matters › june › deadmonton 2007 › deadmonton › edmonton

In late June 2007, the manslaughter sentencing hearing for William Edward Wharry Jr. opened with an Agreed Statement of Facts being entered into the record.

Wharry was convicted of shooting Sara Easton in the face in October 2005.

The statement spoke as much to Wharry's past as it did to a previously unknown practice of the Edmonton Police Service: trading guns for freedom.

Edmonton police gang expert Constable Kevin Berg testified Wharry was picked up on an outstanding warrant for violating the Gaming and Liquor Act in January 2004. Wharry told police he could offer them guns in exchange for being released.

"Mr. Wharry made a phone call and within 15 minutes one of [his] associates dropped off two guns," read the statement.

A police officer told Wharry that two guns were not enough to secure his release.

"Mr. Wharry made another phone call and within 10 minutes, one of [his] associates delivered another illegal handgun to a vacant church lot," the statement continued.

Police then accepted the deal and Wharry turned over a shotgun, a restricted revolver and a prohibited semi-automatic handgun.

Berg, a member of the Integrated Crime Unit, testified that gang members frequently offered to trade stashed guns exclusively kept to barter for freedom or reduced charges.

"They offer up the guns as an exchange for release," Berg said. "That is common among all groups."

Berg said police discontinued the practise fearing public reaction that possible criminals were escaping justice as part of a simple gun confiscation program.

"Now we have to get permission, not just from our sergeant but from our staff sergeant," Berg said. "We used to be able to do it on our own. Now we have to go up the chain of command."

"I would imagine there are some legalities with it down the road," Berg told Crown prosecutor Wade Marke. "It's public perception."

Edmonton police would not confirm or deny the practise took place, stating that Wharry's case was still before the courts.

The guns-for-freedom issue became the focus of a series of Edmonton Journal articles.

In an article published June 27th, 2007 University of Alberta criminologist Bill Pitt suggested Sarah Easton may have died because a "stupid" guns-for-freedom exchange scheme released her killer from police custody.

"It quite possibly has cost this young lady her life," Pitt said.

"It's offensive to think that people can get out of the criminal justice system by supplying illegal weapons."

"By keeping a stupid policy like this in place, what you're doing is in fact aiding and abetting gangsterism."

"This is a program that should be hit over the head with a very blunt instrument and be put away."

"They cut a deal for another gun," Pitt continued. "So I guess you could make the case that the third gun was the equivalent of her life."

The criminologist suggested that it was naive for police to think a guns-for-freedom exchange would reduce the number of firearms on the streets.

He said gang members could easily replenish gun supplies and the practise encouraged the import of illegal weapons from the United States.

"You have incredibly limited upside and an incredibly detrimental downside. So why do it?" Pitt asked. "You can't defend this, something that most people would say is wrong."

Edmonton Coun. Janice Melnychuk, a police commission member, said she knew nothing more about the arrangement than has emerged in court.

Mayor Stephen Mandel asked the commission for details of the practice, but the communications director for the commission said the agency had yet to receive Mandel's request.

"At this point we're not going to look into it any further," the spokesman said, adding commissioners may pursue the issue after Wharry is sentenced.

Police commissioners were next scheduled to meet two weeks after Wharry's sentencing hearing was set to finish.

An Alberta solicitor general's department spokesman said the ministry was not free to comment until the appeal period ends, 30 days after Wharry's sentencing.

"It's a policy matter that is best dealt with by the police chief and the police commission, their civilian oversight body," he said.

An Edmonton police spokesman said they plan to explain the situation after Wharry's sentencing.

Spokesmen for the RCMP and Calgary police said they have no guns-for-freedom provisions.

The wall of silence caused Pitt to state there was no reason for authorities to delay comment.

In a follow-up story, the Edmonton Journal sought additional opinions on the guns-for-freedom practise, nearly uniform in their criticism.

Lawyer Bonnie Parker, a former prosecutor, said she couldn't see the point.

"Quite frankly, I don't see any utility from a Crown perspective or a defence perspective. I'm surprised that this has been going on and everyone I've spoken to is surprised," Parker said.

"It's not surprising that the staff sergeants aren't allowing this to continue as it did in the past," she said of the change in the practise that now requires a staff sergeant's approval.

Steven Penney, a University of Alberta law professor, doubted if police efforts to get firearms off the streets were effective at reducing the gun supply.

Another U of A law professor Sanjeev Anand suspected police wouldn't trade guns for freedom if the person was charged with a serious offence or was a flight risk.

Instead, they may be bartering for weapons in cases where they would normally have to release the accused anyway, Anand said.

Police may tell someone who is entitled to bail that they will oppose the person's release unless he or she co-operates.

"They may say, 'We won't contest it if you give us the guns,' " Anand suggested.

The harshest criticism came from a former gang-member.

The Journal spoke to Len Untereiner, now president of the Spirit Keeper Youth Society, a gang intervention program.

"The guy that turns in one gun, you know he's got four more, because he's only turning in the gun that he doesn't need," said Untereiner.

"From the political end it looks like the program is being successful, but it's for the perception of the public. It doesn't work."

On June 29th, 2007, the day Wharry was sentenced, the Edmonton Police Service tried to get ahead of the ball in the court of public opinion.

"The Edmonton Police Service has never had a program or a policy where we accept guns for charges," said Staff Sgt. Kevin Galvin, head of the Edmonton police organized crimes unit.

"I guess for lack of a better term, we'll use poker terms, it's a bluff for the purposes of investigating, to make the community safer, try to discover other crimes."

Galvin waited until Wharry's sentencing to comment on suggestions there was a guns-for-freedom policy. He stated Wharry was arrested in 2004 in connection to a minor Alberta Gaming and Liquor Control Act offense which the officer likened to a speeding ticket.

Although he did not know what Wharry was accused of doing, Galvin pointed out Wharry would not have been in custody 20 months later when Easton was shot.

"He was getting out no matter what. The investigator rightly used ... Wharry's perception [that he could exchange guns for release] to solve other, more serious crimes in the community," Galvin said.

Galvin illustrated the level of sophistication police encounter on the street.

"They know the process. They know the court system – in particular the administrative part of it – probably better than most of us do short of criminal trial lawyers."

"So when they become sensitive to what's going on they try to manipulate the system for their own needs."

"Do we actively encourage people or accept people showing up here with guns on them to trade them? No, we don't do that. That is not something we encourage."

"Do we continue to probe for information to use as a platform for continued investigations? Absolutely. We couldn't do our job if we didn't," Galvin said.

But criminologist Pitt contended, investigative tactic or not, police should not be trading on weapons.

"If they haven't got the grounds to hold him, then release him," he said. "Don't bother with the weapons. It's a waste of time."

Pitt suggested the guns that gang members turn in are "garbage" weapons.

"Guns for release is a no-no, whether it's a policy or the actions of one or two police officers. You trade on intelligence, you trade on analysis. You don't trade on weapons for freedom."

Criminal defence lawyer Tom Engel said he had heard of other people being offered a promise of freedom if guns were turned in.

"I could tell you that it happens," he said. "They use it to barter, barter for freedom or instead of laying charges.

"And it's not just guns, they'll try to turn them into informers too."

Engel said he did not hear of anyone ever actually being granted release for weapons, and said he did not think the practice did anything to take guns off Edmonton's streets.

On July 3rd, when Chief Mike Boyd was speaking at the launch of the second part of the Enough Is Enough anti-violence campaign, Edmonton's top cop adressed the guns-for-freedom practice.

"In my view it's not common," said Boyd.

"It does happen but officers – when they're considering that – have to consider some of the circumstances."

"In this particular case that was involved last week, this was a person who would not have been in custody anyway and I think everyone understands that."

"One of the benefits was that we were able to get at least three guns off the street at that point."

deadmonton 2007 - other police matters - guns for freedom