Chair's Interim Report – Incident Related to Neglect of Duty, Improper Attitude and Mishandling of Property

RCMP Act Paragraph 45.42(3)(a)

Vetted version for posting

April 18, 2008

Overview

On June 11, 2004, Constable C of the Surrey RCMP Detachment in British Columbia was asked to interview a witness in relation to the sudden death of a young man, Mr. B, the complainant's son. This was the extent of Constable C's involvement in the incident until mid-September 2004, when he was asked by his supervisor, Staff Sergeant D, to conduct a review of the criminal investigation and to resolve some of the concerns raised by Mr. A and his wife. In essence, Mr. and Mrs. A did not agree with the results of the RCMP's criminal investigation and the coroner's determination that their son's death was the result of suicide. They had particular concerns about a note purportedly left by their son and with an individual whom they believed might be a suspect involved in their son's death.

On March 10, 2006, the complainant filed a public complaint with the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (the Commission) essentially alleging that Staff Sergeant D failed to ensure that Constable C conducted a timely and thorough investigation into Mr. B's death; that Constable C failed to conduct a timely and thorough investigation into Mr. B's death; that on April 28, 2005, Constable C was rude and abusive during a telephone conversation; and that Constable C mishandled property by purposely and improperly allowing the destruction of the said property, an item of clothing.

As required by the RCMP Act (the Act), the complaint was investigated by the RCMP. According to the Act, on completion of the investigation the RCMP Commissioner (or his/her delegate) shall send the Final Report to the complainant summarizing the results of the investigation and any action taken to resolve the complaint. In this case, the Commissioner's Final Report, dated October 30, 2007, supported the complainant's allegation with respect to the mishandling of property by finding that the member failed to follow the guidelines established for the control and accountability of exhibits. The RCMP did not support the complainant's other allegations.

The Commission received Mr. A's request for review on December 17, 2007. The Commission requested the relevant materials on December 20, 2007, and received them on January 22, 2008.

For the reasons outlined below, the evidence leads me to conclude that Constable C did not diligently pursue the conduct of the further investigation and was less than forthright with the complainant on one occasion. Moreover, the failure of Constable C to follow established guidelines in terms of the treatment of exhibits resulted in the improper destruction of Mr. B's clothing. Finally, I am unable to make a finding given the lack of independent evidence with respect to whether Constable C was rude or abusive during a telephone conversation with the complainant.

Commission's Review of the Complaint

It is important to note that the Commission is an agency of the federal government, distinct and independent from the RCMP. When reviewing a complaint, the Commission does not act as an advocate either for the complainant or for RCMP members. Rather, its role is to inquire into complaints independently and to reach conclusions after an objective examination of the information provided.

My findings are based on a careful examination of the following materials: Mr. A's complaint, request for review and chronology of the investigation; the Commissioner's Final Report and the public complaint investigation report, including the statements of Mr. A and Constable C; the continuation reports for Constable C; Victim Services Reports for the A family; the coroner's report; the Request for Analysis of Handwriting; the Memorandum from the RCMP Bureau For Counterfeit and Document Examination (BCDE), including handwriting samples submitted to the BCDE; the Ident Occurrence Report; the Sudden Death Report; the continuation report of Constables Castles; the Emergency Medical Service Crew Report; the Photographic Service Request; and the CPIC report pertaining to a person Mr. and Mrs. A believed was involved in their son's death.

First Allegation: Staff Sergeant D failed to ensure that Constable C conducted a timely and thorough investigation into Mr. B's death.

In 2005, Staff Sergeant D retired from the RCMP prior to Mr. A filing his public complaint. Given the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Canada (Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) (Re) (C.A.) [1994] 3 F.C. 562, the Commission has no jurisdiction to review this allegation.

Second Allegation: Constable C failed to conduct a timely and thorough investigation into Mr. B's death.

The Commissioner's Final Report provides a thorough and accurate description of Mr. A's concerns and issues with respect to the investigation into his son's death by Constable C. As a result, I do not propose to repeat in great detail the information gathered by the public investigator and set out in the Commissioner's Final Report. I will, however, address the evidence with regard to two of Mr. A's primary concerns directly.

In June 2004, members of the Surrey RCMP Detachment and the coroner's office investigated the sudden death of Mr.B and determined that his death had been self-inflicted. The coroner and Mr. and Mrs. A agreed that no autopsy would be performed. In the days following Mr. B's death, Mr. and Mrs. A appeared to have accepted the RCMP's and the coroner's conclusions concerning the cause of death. However, they soon began to have doubts and raised questions about certain issues. In particular, they were concerned about an individual with a criminal record, living in the same building, who had not been interviewed, and they also began to question the authenticity of the so-called suicide note. In September 2004, Constable C was assigned by his supervisor, Staff Sergeant D, to follow up on some of Mr. and Mrs. A's questions and concerns that arose from the original investigation into their son's sudden death three months earlier.

Upon the initial meeting with Mr. and Mrs. A, Constable C stated to them that he was open to reviewing the file and thought that he could even ask for a polygraph test of the person Mr. and Mrs. A believed may have killed their son ("the suspect") if foul play was suggested. However, Constable C advised Mr. A that the further investigation would take some time. During the course of several months, Constable C interviewed Mr. E, a friend of Mr. B, and re-interviewed Ms.  F¹ and Mr. B's two neighbours, Ms. G and Mr. H. Constable C asked all of the witnesses about the "suspect" and his relationship with Mr. B. Both Mr. E and Ms. F indicated in some detail that the relationship was a good one. Ms. G had slashed the suspect's tires because he owed her money. Mr. H was non-committal, although he did state, as did Ms. G, that the suspect used crack and stole from his parents, who were B's landlords.

According to Constable C's statement, it took him a long time to locate the suspect, who was in Edmonton, from information obtained through the suspect's mother. He says he "kept calling the mother and eventually I got hold of him." Constable  C says there was no reason to put the suspect on CPIC because he was not under surveillance or a real suspect. Constable C then spoke to the suspect by phone, asking him questions about the day of the incident and his relationship with Mr. B. In his statement, Constable C recounts his conversation with the suspect as follows:

I go, "Did you know anything about it?" He goes, "No, I didn't know anything about it." He goes, "I know he was really hung up on the...on his girlfriend and stuff like that." "He seemed like a good guy." "Any arguments with him?" "No, never any arguments with him...." "Did you do anything to him?" No, I would never do anything to him."

Constable C was under the impression that the suspect was more worried that the member was contacting him about another case. Constable  C stated that two weeks later he spoke to Mr. A about his conversation with the suspect and his belief that the suspect had no involvement in his son's death. According to Constable C, Mr. A stated, "I'm sure he killed my son." The public complaint investigation report indicates that Constable C spoke to Sergeant I, a supervising officer, about whether he should go to Edmonton to speak further with the suspect in person. It was decided that there was no reason to do so, as everything in the investigation pointed to suicide.

In terms of the suspect's criminal record, which Mr. A alluded to as being one of the reasons he believes the suspect killed his son, it discloses only non-violent offences. There is no suggestion that the suspect is an upstanding citizen; however, his criminal record does not reveal a tendency towards violence. This is consistent with the information obtained by Constable C from the witnesses that he interviewed during his follow-up.

There is no question that when Constable C first met with Mr. and Mrs. A in September 2004, they raised their concerns about the authenticity of the note left behind by their son. On that day, the couple provided Constable C with examples of handwriting samples of their son for potential handwriting analysis comparison. According to his statement, Constable C told Mr. A that "It's gonna be like six months ...I don't know how long it gonna take" to get the results of the analysis. On January 10, 2005, Mr. and Mrs. A stated that they contacted Constable C, who advised them, among other things, that the results of the handwriting analysis had not come back yet. A review of Constable C's statement reveals that he was hesitant to send the handwriting samples to the BCDE, believing that the lab would not accept the samples given that the cause of death had already been determined to be suicide. Constable  C's supervisor, Sergeant J, however, believed that the samples should be sent to the BCDE. On May 26, 2005, another member, Constable K, forwarded a request to the BCDE asking for a comparison of the suicide note with the four handwriting samples of Mr. B. On May 30, 2005, the BCDE reported to Constable K as follows:

Your submission received at this laboratory on 2005 May 30 is being returned without examination. This BCDE file assessment process has been created to expedite a response to an investigator's initial request. A preliminary review of your Request for Analysis has disclosed a meaningful comparative handwriting examination could not be carried out with reference to the submitted exhibits.

Analysis

It is important to remember that Constable C was not responsible for re-investigating the sudden death of Mr. B. RCMP members and the coroner had already determined, based upon overwhelming evidence, that the cause of death in this case was self-inflicted. As directed by Staff Sergeant D, Constable C was responsible for conducting a file review and attempting to resolve some of the outstanding concerns and issues of Mr. and Mrs. A. In essence, however, Constable C conducted a further investigation. Over the course of several months, he interviewed and re-interviewed the witnesses. In addition, he appears to have had a couple of phone conversations with Mr. and Mrs. A during November 2004 and January 2005, respectively. Constable C was hesitant to send the handwriting samples for comparative analysis to the BCDE. In May 2005, another constable undertook the work involved, including getting preauthorization from the lab and sending in a detailed request. The lab was unable to provide a meaningful analysis of the handwriting. In August 2005, Constable C located and then contacted "the suspect". After speaking with him by phone, Constable C was satisfied that "the suspect" was not involved in Mr. B's death. All the evidence collected and reviewed by Constable C reaffirmed the RCMP's and the coroner's conclusion about the cause of death.

A review of the evidence indicates that Constable C did attempt to resolve the concerns Mr. and Mrs. A had with the original RCMP and coroner's investigation by conducting follow-up interviews with all of the witnesses, including the so-called "suspect". Nonetheless, I am concerned about the languishing of this further investigation for months on end, the lack of proper reporting to Mr. and Mrs. A and certain representations Constable C made to them during the course of his further investigation, particularly with respect to the handwriting samples having been sent to the lab when clearly they had not.

I acknowledge that this member was transferred to a different section and maintained carriage of Mr. and Mrs. A's file in addition to his new duties. In addition, he says he was dealing with a couple of uncooperative witnesses. However, these points do not negate the fact that Constable C failed to diligently pursue the further investigation, particularly after he had obtained the statements from the four witnesses living in the Surrey/Vancouver area.² He took months to turn his attention to the handwriting sample (which ultimately fell to the responsibility of another officer) and then to locate and contact "the suspect". It is not acceptable to say, as Constable C does, that he had other investigations and "when you send things in...it takes a while to...for it to come back." Presumably, Constable C is referring to the handwriting sample when he talks about sending things in. However, he asked another officer to send in the sample, which involved a substantial amount of paperwork and written justifications. In fairness, Constable C did eventually track down the suspect and talk to him over the phone. He even discussed going out to Edmonton with his supervisor, and they both agreed it was not a good use of police resources. However, it took nearly a year for the subject member to speak with the suspect.³ It is difficult to imagine that had Constable C pursued the suspect with greater attentiveness that he would not have been able to locate him far sooner than nearly a year after the fact. It would appear that once he did speak with the suspect's mother, he was able to contact the suspect almost immediately. In addition, Constable C failed to update Mr.  and Mrs. A in a consistent manner on the progress (or in some cases the lack thereof) of the further investigation. It was Mr. and Mrs. A who had to contact him for a report on the progress of the further investigation. For example, according to Mr. and Mrs. A, when they spoke to Constable C on January 10, 2005, he advised that he would contact them in a few days. However, the evidence reveals that the next contact came four months later, in April. In short, this further investigation suffered from the inattention of its investigator. Constable C failed to follow up in a reasonably timely manner on certain matters, such as the handwriting sample and the suspect. Moreover, likely because he was not doing anything on the file, Constable C failed to provide Mr. and Mrs. A with updates. Of most concern, however, is the misimpression Mr. and Mrs. A were left with after their conversation with Constable C on January 10, 2005, involving the writing samples. They were left with the impression that the handwriting samples had been sent to the lab, when in fact they had not. Constable C offers no explanation for this misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of Constable C's actions of prolonging the further investigation and failing to update the complainant in a timely manner may have been to hold out false hope to Mr. and Mrs. A that his investigation might somehow produce a different conclusion than the original RCMP's criminal and coroner's investigations. Moreover, Constable C's lack of continuation reports noting the work he may have done on the further investigation further aggravates his position. His statement to the public complaint investigator is similarly of little assistance, given the lack of detail in his explanations. Notes and continuation reports would surely have assisted this member with his statement. Accordingly, I find Constable C conducted himself in a manner that falls short of what is expected of an RCMP member in terms of the timeliness of the further investigation, keeping the family updated and being forthright with members of the public.

I wish to note that my findings do not in any way undermine the overall integrity of the criminal investigation undertaken initially by the RCMP and the determination with respect to the cause of death reached by the RCMP and the coroner. Finally, I am concerned about Mr. and Mrs. A's comment made to the public complaint investigator that they felt they had been mistreated by the RCMP from the inception of the investigation into their son's death. In accordance with principles of community policing, the RCMP should try to address this issue with Mr. and Mrs. A.

Finding: Constable C did not conduct a timely further investigation, failed to provide appropriate updates to the complainant and was not forthright with the complainant on one occasion.

Third Allegation: Constable C was rude and abusive to Mr. A during a telephone conversation on April 28, 2005.

The evidence reveals that on April 28, 2005, upon receiving a letter from Mr. A requesting an update on the follow-up investigation, Constable C contacted Mr. A by telephone. According to Mr. A' evidence, Constable C asked Mr. A why he had sent a letter and told him that he could have just called him at the number provided on his (business) card. Mr. A stated to the public complaint investigator that Constable C was extremely rude and told him not to talk. Mr. A advised that Constable C was upset, rude and offensive over the fact that the letter had been sent. Mr. A then contacted Sergeant J regarding the conversation. He said that she advised him to contact her in future. There was no further communication between Mr. A and Constable C until February 3, 2006.

According to Constable C's statement, he called Mr. A after receiving the letter. Constable C stated that he told Mr. A that he did not have to write, that he could call him 24 hours a day if he wanted to talk, but that he did not have anything new to convey. Constable C indicated that he thought Mr. A felt like he was saying he did not care. Constable C stated that he did not remember exactly what was said in the conversation, but that he was not angry and was professional with Mr. A. Constable C indicated that he may have jumped in to speak, as he found Mr. A difficult to talk to sometimes and he appeared not to listen and cut off the member when he was speaking. Constable C stated, "the tone was [a] little 'Look sir,' you know, 'And this is what I have,'" which presumably means his tone was firm. Finally, Constable C recalled Mr. A being confrontational on this call.

There is no evidence in terms of what was contained in Mr. A' letter. However, the effect of the letter quickly prompted Constable C to contact Mr. A, as Constable C had last spoken to Mr. A four months earlier when Mr. A had contacted him requesting an update.

Mr. A claims that Constable C was rude and offensive, telling him not to talk. Constable C says that he acted professionally, that Mr. A was confrontational and that he had to jump in to speak. Mr. A's claim does not disclose any real evidence of rude or offensive conduct, as it is not sufficient to simply make a bald statement that a member was rude or offensive. The fact that Constable C told Mr. A not to talk or that he was firm with him is not an indication of being rude, particularly when Constable C stated that Mr. A would not listen and repeatedly cut off the member when he tried to talk.⁴ However, I also note that the Commission does not have the benefit of Mr. A's own statement. As noted in the public complaint report, the interview of Mr. and Mrs. A was audio recorded; however, the recording malfunctioned. The public complaint investigator made a detailed summary of Mr. and Mrs. A's evidence. Nonetheless, I recognize that it is only a summary and likely does not capture everything Mr. and Mrs. A said. In his request for review, Mr. A claims that Mrs. A was beside him during the call and that she overheard Constable C on the phone. However, it is clear she was not a party to the conversation, and it is simply not reasonable to assume that she heard the entire conversation while beside Mr. A. Consequently, her evidence on this point is of limited value. However, I also acknowledge that Constable C made no notes of his conversation with Mr. A, which would have been the appropriate course of action given the nature of the call and the fact that it is part of normal police practice. Moreover, notes of this call would have assisted this member by helping to aid his memory, as he could not recall the specifics of what was said during the conversation, and notes of the call would have provided a contemporaneous record of the conversation.

Accordingly, the issue comes down to Mr. A's word against that of Constable C in terms of whether the member was rude and offensive during their telephone conversation. Given the subjective nature of this allegation, and in the absence of compelling independent evidence such as member notes, I am unable to support or refute this allegation.

Finding: I am unable to support or refute this allegation.

Fourth Allegation: Constable C allowed the destruction of Mr. B's clothes.

A review of the public complaint investigation report reveals that on September 15, 2004, Constable C attended at the residence of Mr. and Mrs. A and, during the course his visit, he seized the clothing that Mr. B had been wearing at the time of his death. Constable C placed the clothing in a temporary storage locker and overlooked having the clothing properly logged as an exhibit and placed in an exhibit locker. Constable C was transferred to a different detachment office and forgot about the clothing in the temporary locker. The locker was emptied and the clothing destroyed, as there was no exhibit or file number attached to it. Upon learning of the destruction of the clothing in February 2006, Constable C attended at the A's residence and apologized for his mistake.

Mr. and Mrs. A believe that Constable C intentionally had the clothing destroyed. However, there is no evidence that supports this claim. It is apparent that it was sloppy police work, not wilful malice, that resulted in the destruction of the clothing.

In the letter of disposition, the RCMP advised that Constable C did not follow established guidelines governing the control and accountability of exhibits, which resulted in the destruction of Mr. B's clothing. The RCMP apologized for the inappropriate destruction of the clothing and advised that Constable C would be provided with operational guidance to ensure that he understands "the consequences of his failure and to ensure that any exhibits that come into his possession in the future are handled correctly."

Finding: I am satisfied with the RCMP's disposition of this allegation.

Having considered the complaint, I hereby submit my Interim Report in accordance with paragraph 45.42(3)(a) of the RCMP Act.

___________________________________
Paul E. Kennedy
Chair

1 During his interviews with Mr. E and Ms. F, an incident was disclosed about Mr. B becoming distressed about Ms.  's behaviour and going into the closet and making a noose-like loop out of a belt, which tends to further support the RCMP's and the coroner's conclusion about the cause of Mr. B's death.

2 Equally concerning is the lack of proper continuation reports and notes. The RCMP provided the Commission with the subject member's police notebook notes for September 15 and 23, 2004, October 14, 2004, and an undated note. No other notes or continuation reports were forthcoming from this subject member.

3 I note that the suspect's parents and family lived in Surrey.

4 This is supported by Mr. A's own statement to the public complaint investigator that Constable C told him not to talk.