Chair's Interim Report – Incident Related to Oppressive Conduct

RCMP Act Paragraph 45.42(3)(a)

Vetted version for posting

September 1, 2009

Synopsis

This review arose from an incident which occurred on July 2, 2006. The complainant, Ms. A, was the subject of conditions stating that she could have no contact with her ex-boyfriend, Mr. C. On July 2, 2006, Mr. C reported to the Sooke RCMP Detachment in British Columbia that Ms. A had attended his residence and confronted him on June 30, 2006. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on July 2, 2006, Constable D and Constable E attended Ms. A's residence, where Constable D told Ms. A that she was under arrest for breaching her conditions and proceeded to enter the residence. While Constable D allowed Ms. A to get dressed, a brief scuffle ensued, and Ms. A was arrested for assault, handcuffed, taken out of her residence and taken to the detachment. Ms. A later complained that Constable D acted inappropriately during her arrest.

The RCMP concluded in its Final Report that the members used appropriate force towards Ms. A after carefully assessing the situation.

I conclude that the members' arrest of Ms. A for breaching her conditions was unreasonable, given that they had not sought a warrant and no exigent circumstances existed. Nonetheless, I also find that Constable D' arrest of Ms. A for assault and her use of force was reasonable in the circumstances.

Overview of the Process

On November 1, 2006, the Commission received Ms. A's complaint regarding the conduct of Constable D. Ms. A alleged that Constable D acted inappropriately during her arrest.

Pursuant to the RCMP Act (the Act), the complaint was investigated by the RCMP. Consistent with the Act, on completion of the investigation, the RCMP Commissioner's delegate sent his Final Report to the complainant summarizing the results of the investigation and any action taken to resolve the complaint.

The RCMP's Final Report, dated April 25, 2009 did not support Ms. A's allegations.

Ms. A was not satisfied with the RCMP's disposition of her complaint. The Commission received Ms. A's request for review on May 11, 2009. It received materials relating to this file from the RCMP on June 22, 2009.

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 the RCMP members. Rather, its role is to inquire into complaints independently and to reach conclusions after an objective examination of the information provided.

My conclusions and findings, as indicated below, are based on a careful examination of the relevant materials. These include the RCMP's public complaint investigative file, the RCMP operational file and its Final Report.

Facts

On July 2, 2006, Mr. C reported to the Sooke RCMP Detachment that Ms. A had attended his residence two days previously and confronted him in a verbally abusive and threatening manner. Constable D, who was assigned the file, had been involved in prior issues involving Ms. A and Mr. C on several occasions. Ms. A was under conditions not to contact Mr. C. Constable D determined that Ms. A should be arrested for breaching her conditions and attended her residence along with Constable E.

The members arrived at Ms. A's residence, where she lived with her 18-year-old daughter B and her 14-year-old son, at approximately 11:00 p.m. They knocked on the door, which was answered by B. Constable D asked B to get her mother, and B left to ask Ms. A to go to the door. Ms. A opened the door and was informed by Constable D that she was under arrest for breaching her conditions and would have to go to the detachment. Ms. A refused, and the members entered her residence and told her that she had to go. Constable D escorted Ms. A to her bedroom, where she was to change into more suitable clothing, as she had been wearing a nightdress.

The accounts of Ms. A, her daughter and the members are relatively consistent up to this point, when they begin to diverge. Ms.  A indicated that she was alone in her room with Constable D, getting ready to go to the detachment, when she put her hands up to stop herself and the member from colliding as they both turned at the same time. Ms. A stated that Constable D told her that she had assaulted a police officer, where upon Ms. A swore at her and began to turn around, saying that if Constable D thought that Ms. A had assaulted her she should put handcuffs on. Ms. A related that Constable D then put her wrists behind her back and pushed her approximately 19.5 feet down the bedroom corridor to run her into a wall. According to Ms. A, Constable D then handcuffed her and she was removed and taken to the detachment.

Constable  D, the only other individual in the bedroom with Ms. A during the incident, indicated that while in her bedroom, Ms. A was verbally abusive, angry and agitated. Constable D stated that after some time, she told Ms. A that it was time to go, at which point Ms. A swore at her and shoved her in the chest. Constable D stated that she fell back, hitting an unidentified object. She related that she was concerned about Ms. A's level of agitation and decided to restrain her. She stated that she took Ms. A's left arm and held it behind her back and, concerned that Ms. A was going to further escalate the situation, walked her forward down the hallway and against the wall to restrain her. According to Constable D, Constable E then attended, she arrested Ms. A for assaulting a police officer, and Ms. A was escorted outside into the police vehicle. Once Ms. A was in the vehicle, Constable D informed her of her Charter rights and the standard police warning.

Allegation: Constable D acted inappropriately during Ms. A's arrest.

Analysis

Ms. A's arrest for breaching her conditions

The evidence demonstrates that Constable D purported to arrest Ms. A while the latter was inside her residence and then entered the residence to effect the arrest, fearing that Ms. A would close the door. The Criminal Code provides that a peace officer may not arrest an individual without a warrant for breaching his or her conditions unless it is necessary to establish a person's identity, preserve evidence or prevent the continuation or repetition of the breach or the commission of another offence.

In this instance, Constable D arrested Ms. A, who was at home with her two children, late at night and approximately two days following the alleged breach of her conditions. Constable D was aware of Ms. A's identity and there was no indication that the member sought to protect evidence or prevent the commission of another offence. There is no evidence as to why a warrantless arrest so late at night was carried out. Constable D offered no explanation of her failure to seek a warrant for Ms. A's arrest. While there were reasonable and probable grounds justifying Ms. A's arrest, Constable D did not demonstrate that the warrantless arrest served the public interest in any appreciable way and, accordingly, I find that the arrest was unreasonable.

Ms. A's arrest for assault and Constable D' use of force

The Criminal Code empowers police officers to use reasonable force in the administration and enforcement of the law. In addition, the CAPRA problem-solving model and the version of the RCMP's Incident Management/Intervention Model (IM/IM) which was in place at the time of this incident required that members assess risk and continually assess the appropriateness of intervening, in addition to their level of intervention. The IM/IM provided that the best strategy is the least intervention necessary to manage risk and that the best intervention causes the least harm or damage. The IM/IM specified that verbal commands should be attempted or considered at all times, and provided guidelines for the use of force in various situations.

In this instance, there is no dispute that Constable D used physical force against Ms. A to restrain her for fear of her aggressive behaviour escalating. Both Constable D and Ms. A indicated that Ms. A pushed the member, although they each interpret the physical contact differently: Constable D as a deliberate assault, and Ms. A as a reaction to a near-collision. It should be noted that neither individual interpreted Ms. A's behaviour as an assertion of her rights (i.e. to resist an unlawful arrest) in response to her earlier arrest.

In my view, a reasonable person in Constable D' position would have viewed a push in the chest from an aggressive and angry individual as deliberate, and I accept that she interpreted the action as an assault. Accordingly, I find that Constable D was in possession of the requisite reasonable grounds to justify her arrest of Ms. A for assault, and was entitled to use reasonable force in effecting that arrest. Both women indicated that Constable D put Ms. A's arm behind her back and pushed her some distance down a hallway, where she held Ms. A against a wall and handcuffed her. In my view, the force used by Constable D was minimal in the circumstances, and proportionate to that used by Ms. A. Accordingly, I find that Constable D used reasonable force in restraining Ms. A during her arrest for assault.

Recommendation: That a senior officer review with Constable D the circumstances surrounding Ms. A's arrest for breaching her conditions and the requirement to obtain arrest warrants in such situations.

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

_____________________
Paul E. Kennedy
Chair