Chair's Interim Report – Incident Related to Improper Attitude

RCMP Act Paragraph 45.42(3)(a)

Vetted version for posting

May 14, 2009

Overview

On January 31, 2008, Ms. A called the Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia non-emergency police line to advise that her father, from whom she is estranged, had just left her residence. Ms. A was upset and requesting police assistance. The request for service was forwarded to Constable B and Constable C of the Cole Harbour RCMP detachment, who in turn called Ms. A while en route to her residence. During this telephone conversation Ms. A became upset with Constable B and terminated the call. The members arrived at Ms. A's residence and the interaction between her and Constables B and C continued to decline. Ultimately, Ms. A called 911 and she was subsequently issued a summary offence ticket by Constable C for misusing the 911 emergency service.

On February 5, 2008,¹ Ms. A complained directly to the RCMP regarding the conduct of Constables B and C. The complainant essentially alleged that the members displayed an improper attitude in their dealings with her.

Pursuant to 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 delegate) shall send his Final Report to the complainant summarizing the results of the investigation and any action taken to resolve the complaint. The Commissioner's Final Report, dated August 13, 2008, supported one of Ms. A's allegations but did not support the other.

Ms. A was not satisfied with the RCMP's disposition of her complaint. The Commission received Ms. A's request for review on February 6, 2009, and it received from the RCMP the investigation documents relating to this file on February 17, 2009.

For the reasons outlined below, I find that the RCMP appropriately disposed of Ms. A's complaint of improper attitude specific to Constable B knocking on her door, by apologizing to her. However, with respect to the other allegation of improper attitude, I find that Constables B and C displayed an improper attitude towards the complainant; that Constables B and C's on-air conversation with a dispatcher was unprofessional; and that Constable C improperly issued Ms. A a summary offence ticket under the Emergency "911" Act.

Commission's Review of the Complaint

It is important to note that the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (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 for either the complainant or 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, as indicated below, are based on a careful examination of the investigation documents. These include the public complaint investigation report, the RCMP's Final Report, Ms. A's complaint, transcripts of the January 31, 2008 Halifax Regional Dispatch Centre calls, Constable B and Constable C's statements, and initial and supplemental officers' reports related to the events that day.

First Allegation: Constables B and C displayed an improper attitude in the way they knocked on Ms. A's door.

Ms. A notes in her complaint that one of the members, later identified as Constable B, initially knocked on her door like "[...] an escaped baboon," which she found to be improper. Eventually, the member knocked in a less aggressive manner and both members were allowed into the complainant's residence.

The RCMP's Final Report to the complainant noted that given the fact that Constable B knocked again at the request of Ms. A suggested that indeed the complainant found the initial knock offensive. To remedy this, an apology was offered to Ms. A.

I concur with the finding of the Final Report specific to this allegation and I am satisfied that the RCMP has appropriately dealt with this aspect of Ms. A's complaint by apologizing to the complainant for the members' "offending knock."

Finding: This aspect of the complaint has been appropriately disposed of by the RCMP.

Second Allegation: Constables B and C displayed an improper attitude throughout their interaction with Ms. A on January 31, 2008.

In her ten-page complaint, Ms. A details her interaction with Constables B and C on January 31, 2008. Ms. A notes that the members' tone was perceived by her to be offensive, abusive, rude and mocking and that the situation escalated to the point that the complainant asked them to leave her residence. The complainant also stated in her complaint that she felt sufficiently threatened by the continued presence of the RCMP members and their refusal to leave her residence that she telephoned 911 to request assistance.

Constable B's statement details her version of events. She notes that Ms. A was very agitated and rude when she called while en route to the complainant's residence. Constable B indicated that Ms. A terminated the telephone conversation and she and Constable C proceeded to the residence. When Constable B knocked on the door, Ms. A demanded that she knock again because she knocked like a baboon; she knocked again and was allowed into the residence. Constable B noted that once she was inside the residence the complainant was not cooperative, was ranting and would not give details about the nature of the request for service. The member confirms that Ms. A requested that the RCMP members leave her residence and "then she [Ms. A] picks up the phone and calls 911 and puts on this professional and calm voice." With respect to the issuance of the ticket, Constable B stated:

[C] explained to her the 911 Act and told her the fine, bottom line is that you can not call 911 in non emergencies. We were here because she called us. There's non emergency number to call. [...] She demanded the ticket, said she was going to call again and that she wanted to go to court.

Constable B denied that she laughed at or mocked Ms. A.

Constable C's statement similarly details what occurred on January 31, 2008. She indicated that Ms. A had asked the RCMP members to leave her residence numerous times and then went into the kitchen and called 911. Constable C stated:

After the phone was hung up I explained the misuse of 911. I gave her a verbal warning. She said give me the ticket. I explained that I not giving her a ticket. [...] She said that if we don't give her a ticket, she's calling 911 again. [...] I wrote up the ticket and gave it to her.

Constable C did not provide details of Ms. A's conversation with the 911 dispatcher. The member did note that she was professional with the complainant at all times.

Police officers are empowered to make decisions to investigate allegations of wrongdoing, such as provincial statutory offences, and that this necessarily involves the exercise of discretion. In a complaint such as this one, where the exercise of judgment or discretion is at issue, the question for the Commission is not whether another person would have acted differently. Rather, the issue is whether that judgment or discretion can be said to have been exercised unreasonably or on the basis of any improper consideration.

A transcript of the 911 call and police radio transmissions revealed that Ms. A stated that the members were "[...] extremely hostile and it's going to escalate into a problem that's going to be escalating even to a further situation." She advised the operator that she believed the members were not taking her concerns seriously, and that she wanted them removed from her house. In her statement to the public complaint investigator, Ms. A noted that she was feeling unsafe and vulnerable and that the members advised her not to call 911 or she would be issued a summary offence ticket.

Contrary to Constable B's statement that Ms. A calmly spoke to the 911 operator, there is an indication in the transcripts that the complainant was agitated and was repeatedly advised by the 911 dispatcher to calm down and explain what was going on.

I believe Ms. A when she states that she felt unsafe and vulnerable with the continued presence of the members and therefore called 911; I am not required to validate whether Ms. A's perceptions were correct. Having stated that, this belief is not an indictment on the members' actions, but rather an acknowledgment that the complainant perceived the unfolding events very differently than the members.

It is clear by reviewing the material before the Commission that the complainant had repeatedly asked the members to leave her residence and that she was sufficiently cognizant of the fact that the situation was spiralling out of control and she was becoming increasingly distressed.

The Nova Scotia Emergency " 911" Act² provides:

Prohibition respecting vexatious calls
12 No person shall use or permit another person to use the telephone to place a false, frivolous or vexatious call to the number "911".

Offences and penalties
13 A person who violates any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a penalty of not more than five thousand dollars or in default to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, and for each subsequent offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or, in default, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year.

The complainant made what she believed to be the appropriate decision to call 911 and request that the members be removed from her residence. While the attending members obviously believed the call was unjustified, there is no information on file to support the contention that Ms. A's motives were false, frivolous or vexatious. Furthermore, while grounds to issue a summary offence ticket may have existed, it likely only served to exacerbate an already difficult situation. Ms. A perceived the situation to be not only threatening but escalating; the members' response to Ms. A indicates a lack of appreciation of what was occurring.

Further, the public complaint investigation report notes that:

In reviewing the tapes for this call however it is noted that during a conversation that Cst. B had with the dispatcher, both Cst. [B] and Cst. [C] are laughing at Ms. [A] and refer to her as whacked and crazy.

The language used by the members is confirmed by the transcripts of the conversation between the members and dispatch, but is not something that either member addressed in their statements, nor was it addressed in the RCMP's Final Report provided to the complainant.

While Ms. A may not have overheard Constable B's conversation, the fact that that conversation took place in the complainant's house, over the air, and knowing that it was being taped may provide insight into the mindset of the members during their interaction with Ms. A. Constable B's discussions with dispatch, as well as the behaviour of Constable C, were unprofessional and improper; however, it aptly illustrates members who were at a loss as to how to handle the situation in general and Ms. A specifically.

With respect to the complainant's allegations that the members' behaviour was offensive, abusive, rude and mocking, it is clear from the information on file that the interaction between the complainant and the members was volatile from the start.

By her own admission, Ms. A concedes that she was in a state of crisis and having trouble functioning. The public complaint investigation report notes:

There is no doubt that Ms. [A] was in crisis when she called the police on January 31, 2008. [...] Although the members may have reacted in a manner they viewed as appropriate for the situation, based on Ms. [A]'s state at the time, it was perceived by Ms. [A] as antagonistic. The fact that Cst. [B] and Cst. [C] felt the need to charge Ms. [A] for calling 911 may be an indicator that they did not properly understand the severity of her distress during this particular incident.

I echo these comments made by the public complaint investigator, Sergeant E. The extent of the distress being experienced by Ms. A was not fully comprehended by the members.

While the Commission acknowledges the members' frustration and the need to restrict the availability of the 911 system to emergency calls, the fact that someone in Ms. A's emotional state would first be threatened with, and then issued, a summary offence ticket for calling 911 in this situation was not the most appropriate response in the circumstances.

At times police officers are placed in situations where they must deal with the public who are sometimes difficult, impolite and for a variety of reasons, mistrustful of the police. Section 37 of the RCMP Act requires members "to act at all times in a courteous, respectful and honourable manner." It is clear from the comments made by the members on the date in question that their conduct fell short of this standard. In particular, when faced with people experiencing some sort of mental health crisis, RCMP members are advised to be professional, objective, polite, respectful, patient, encouraging, positive and calm. It was incumbent upon Constables B and C to exhibit these behaviours during their interaction with Ms. A.

Pursuant to paragraph 45.42(3)(a) of the RCMP Act, I respectfully submit my Interim Report.

_____________________
Paul E. Kennedy
Chair

1 The Final Report indicates that the complaint was lodged on February 25, 2008; however, the Public Complaint Record (Form 4110) which was signed by Cpl. D at the time the complaint was lodged, indicates that the complaint date was February 5, 2008.

2 S.N.S. 1992, c. 4.