Three Toronto residents were suddenly awakened Wednesday morning by police breaking down the door of their home to search for a man who had not lived there in nearly two years.
Bryanna Reilly and her two roommates were woken up at 5 a.m. by police searching their apartment for a man accused of vandalizing a bookstore in downtown Toronto.
Police had a search warrant for this 33-year-old man, who had lived in the home more than 20 months ago.
“It was frightening, disturbing and unexpected,” Ms. Reilly told the Toronto Star.
The three roommates also admitted they were confused about how the search warrant was even accepted.
“From my point of view, it looks like they didn’t take any precautions at all,” said Vedanth Govi, one of the housemates. He wonders why investigators haven’t contacted the homeowner to find out if the suspect still lives in the house.
Reid Rusonik, a criminal defense attorney, told the English-language media outlet that while police could not notify the homeowner to alert the suspect, investigators could have conducted additional checks to ensure he lived there. This address.
Govi was still half asleep and half naked when a police officer entered his room. The officer questioned him “aggressively” while repeatedly showing him a photo of the suspect on his cell phone before realizing the mistake.
“A search warrant can only be authorized if the offender can demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect or evidence is at the address in question. “Sometimes this information turns out to be inaccurate, but not necessarily because officers failed to exercise caution,” the Toronto police spokesman told English-language media.
“Searches in which nothing illegal is found and the justification for the arrest warrant is clearly false are carried out all the time,” Rusonik said. And we don’t know the extent of the problem because police are not required to disclose this information.
The suspect was eventually arrested along with these accomplices later on Wednesday. You are charged with hateful breach of trust over $5,000.