Chair's Interim Report – Incident Related to Excessive Use of Force

RCMP Act Paragraph 45.42(3)(a)

Vetted version for posting

October 5, 2007

Overview

On June 3, 2006, an RCMP detachment in Saskatchewan received a report of a suicidal person in a residence. Constable A and Constable B responded to the call. The members entered the residence in question, that of the complainant, and proceeded to the basement where they saw the complainant standing on a bathroom vanity with a rope looped around her neck and a cordless telephone in her hand. After a brief scuffle during which the complainant was pepper-sprayed and taken to the ground, the complainant was arrested and transported to hospital. The complainant was later charged with mischief and assaulting a peace officer, but both charges were stayed at trial.

On July 25, 2006, the complainant filed a complaint about the conduct of Constable A. In her complaint, the complainant essentially alleges that Constable A used excessive force during her arrest.

As required by the RCMP Act, the complaint was investigated by the RCMP. According to the Act, on completion of the investigation the RCMP Commissioner (or his designate) shall send his Final Report to the complainant summarizing any action taken to resolve the complaint. In this case, the Commissioner's Final Report of March 9, 2007 did not support the complainant's allegations.

The Commission received the complainant's request for review on June 11, 2007. The Commission received the relevant material relating to this file from the RCMP on July 3, 2007.

For the reasons outlined below, the evidence leads me to conclude that Constable A's use of force was neither reasonable nor consistent with RCMP policy.

Commission's Review of the Complaint

It is important to note that the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP 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.

Having now reviewed the complaint and the RCMP's Final Report, I have prepared this report, which contains my finding with respect to the complaint. A detailed and very careful examination has been undertaken of all the relevant materials related to this file. This has included a review of the complainant's statement, the members' statements, the RCMP investigational file, the complainant's medical records, and the relevant legislation and policy.

Allegation: Constable A used excessive force during the complainant's arrest.

In her complaint, the complainant stated that on the afternoon of June 3, 2006, she had a physical altercation with her husband during which her husband yelled at her daughter to phone the police. The complainant stated that a neighbour was trying to talk to her, but she would not listen. The complainant explained that the neighbour then left in her vehicle, and the complainant's husband walked down the road. According to the complainant, she then ran outside and smashed the windows in her husband's car, following which she returned inside the residence, grabbing a rope on the way inside, and locked all the doors.

The complainant stated that she proceeded to the basement and tied the rope around the hard wiring in the washroom. She related that she then called her mother to tell her what was happening and what she was going to do. The complainant stated that her mother said she had to go, and the complainant proceeded to call a friend. According to the complainant, her friend could not do anything, as she was caring for her children. At that point, the complainant stated that she heard the RCMP vehicle pull up, and told her friend that she had to go. The complainant related that the members entered the residence and "were looking around, calling for [her]." She indicated that as she stood on the sink with the rope around her neck, Constable B came downstairs, followed by Constable A. The complainant stated that she told the members not to come any closer or she would jump. She stated that Constable A said that he had pepper spray and would use it if necessary. According to the complainant, she then told Constable A that if he came closer, she would kick him away. She stated that she then jumped, at which point Constable A came and lifted her.

The complainant stated that when Constable A lifted her, she was holding the rope with one hand and her cordless phone with the other. She indicated that she gave Constable A "a few forearms" in the shoulder while telling him to let her go, and then proceeded to give Constable B the telephone. The complainant related that Constable B climbed onto the toilet and tried to remove the rope, but was unable to. According to the complainant, she then got the rope off herself. She stated that after that, Constable A pepper-sprayed her in the face while she was still in his arms, and then "slammed [her] face first into the concrete floor." The complainant related that Constable A flipped her over, sat on her, and punched her seven times with a closed fist – seven times on the side of her head and her face. The complainant stated that she also received scrape marks to her left forearm when Constable A flipped her over. She explained that Constable A then turned her back onto her stomach and handcuffed her, after which she was taken to the hospital. The complainant stated that she was given eight stitches to the right eyebrow area. After she returned to the detachment and slept in cells for a few hours, she indicated that she was having dizzy spells and was eventually taken to the emergency department in Regina.

The complainant stated that her injuries included a cut above her right eyebrow, a contusion on the right side of her head, two black eyes, bruising to the forehead, bruising to the eye area, bruises on the right side of her lip and right shoulder, and two scrapes on her left forearm. She stated that while she had a small black knife when the police arrived, she dropped it.

The complainant's statement to the public complaint investigator was substantially similar to her complaint. She stated, however, that Constable A had told her to come down or she would be pepper-sprayed. She also added that Constable A was wearing black gloves with the fingertips cut off of them throughout the incident. The complainant stated that she did not struggle with Constable A.

The complainant's medical records from the day of the incident show that medical personnel noted a contusion to her right temple area, a deep and gaping laceration to her left eyebrow area, bruising around her right eye, an abrasion on the bridge of her nose, bruising on her right lower lip, and an abrasion around her neck.

The complainant's height and weight were noted. The public complaint investigator noted her to be "slightly built" with "little muscle mass."

Constable B provided a statement to the public complaint investigator. She stated that the members received a call at approximately 2:30 p.m. on the relevant date from the complainant's husband, who stated a female was smashing windows out of his vehicle. Constable B stated that she and Constable A attended the complainant's neighbour's house to speak with the complainant's husband. While there, she stated that the members received a call from the complainant's friend, who was worried that the complainant may harm herself.

Constable B stated that she and Constable A then attended the complainant's residence, and opened the door with a key given to them by the complainant's husband. Constable B recalled that Constable A then went upstairs while she went downstairs. Constable B stated that she heard the complainant downstairs, yelling, "Get the [expletive] out of the house." Constable B stated that the members went downstairs, and saw the complainant standing on the bathroom sink with a rope around her neck tied to a ceiling beam. Constable  B recalled telling the complainant not to jump. According to Constable B, the complainant was holding a cordless telephone in her hand and, in response to Constable A telling her not to jump, she told him to stay away or she would throw the telephone at him. Constable B indicated that Constable A then warned the complainant that he would pepper-spray her.

Constable B stated that the complainant then jumped or stepped off the sink, and that Constable A pepper-sprayed her at "about that very same instant." Constable B related that Constable A then walked forward and put his arms around the complainant's waist, while she stepped onto the toilet to try to undo the knot in the rope. According to Constable B, the complainant was hitting Constable A in the neck, ear and shoulder with the cordless telephone. Constable B explained that she then grabbed the complainant's hand and banged it against the wall, making her drop the telephone on the floor. She related that she then loosened the knot at the ceiling and, with the complainant's help, removed the rope from around the complainant's neck.

Constable B stated that once the rope had been removed, she told Constable A, "She's good." She related that Constable A then "threw [the complainant] to the floor." Constable B explained that the complainant was on her stomach and her right eyebrow, which had split open, was bleeding. Constable B stated that Constable A was holding the complainant down. She related that she got off the toilet and walked around the complainant and, as she approached the complainant's left side, Constable A said "Quit [expletive] around" and struck the complainant. Constable B described Constable A as having struck the complainant three to four times with an open hand to the back of the head. Constable B stated that the complainant was then handcuffed, while the complainant cried and said, "Why did you have to hit me."

Constable B stated that Constable A never struck the complainant with a closed fist, or in the face. She related that the complainant was on her stomach throughout the incident. She did not note the complainant to have any weapons; she stated that the complainant was holding only the telephone. Constable B did not notice that the complainant had any injuries when the members first arrived at the residence, and did not recall Constable A wearing gloves.

Constable A, who also provided a statement, indicated that upon arrival at the residence, he announced that the police had arrived and told the complainant to open the door, all the while knocking. Constable A stated that the complainant told the members "to get the [expletive] out of there," at which point he opened the door with keys given to him by the complainant's husband. Constable A's account proceeds in a similar fashion to that of Constable B. He stated that he took his pepper spray out, as he felt he needed the complainant off the counter, and he was concerned that she would throw the cordless telephone at him or kick him if he got any closer. Constable A stated that as a result, he pepper-sprayed the complainant, after which she jumped off the counter. Constable A stated that he then grabbed the complainant's legs, but, contaminated by the pepper spray, he could not see. He related that he felt something, not the complainant's hand, hitting him atop the head. Constable A stated that he felt Constable B remove the telephone from the complainant's hand, and that the complainant subsequently hit him on the head with her fist.

Constable A stated that he then took the complainant, who was standing on the counter, to the ground. He indicated that the complainant's forehead was the first thing to hit the ground, at which point the complainant's forehead began bleeding. Constable A stated that he asked the complainant to give him her hand, which was underneath her, but she did not. Constable A stated that he got on top of the complainant and attempted to get her hand, but she "started to resist" and would not give up her hand. According to Constable A, he gave the complainant a "distraction strike" to the side of her head, right above the ear area. He indicated that he did so with an open hand. Constable A stated that the complainant continued to fight, and he "gave her two more shots" to the right side of her face, at which point she gave up her arm. Constable A stated that the left side of the complainant's face was turned into the ground throughout the incident.

Constable A stated that he does not own gloves of the type described by the complainant.

The contemporaneous notes of both Constable B and Constable A are consistent with their statements.

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 RCMP's Incident Management/Intervention Model (IM/IM) require that members assess risk and continually assess the appropriateness of intervening, in addition to their level of intervention. The IM/IM provides that the best strategy is the least intervention necessary to manage risk and that the best intervention causes the least harm or damage. In any situation requiring intervention, members must apply the "use of force continuum," which dictates the level of force that is appropriate to a given situation.

The IM/IM states that in the case of non-cooperative or resistant individuals, verbal intervention should be used, followed by soft empty-hand control, which includes soft physical restraint methods, pain compliance, distractions and stuns, and then hard empty-hand control or intermediate devices such as pepper spray or conducted energy weapons (Tasers). Based on the evidence of the complainant and the RCMP members, I believe that it is accurate to state that the complainant's behaviour was at best non-cooperative. However, in this instance, the situation is complicated by the fact that the complainant was clearly suicidal and was in very real danger of harming herself. While the members did attempt minimal verbal intervention, it is unclear why Constable A decided to use pepper spray, an intermediate device likely to disorient those affected, on a suicidal individual in a precarious position with a rope around her neck. There is no evidence that the complainant, a relatively small woman, posed a significant risk to the RCMP members, and pepper spray was most certainly not the least intervention necessary to manage the risk posed. I have previously stated that when considering how much force is appropriate, it would be reasonable to expect the member to consider the principle of proportionality: that is, the amount of force used should bear some reasonable relationship to the amount of resistance the members are facing, as well as the context of the incident.¹

While the complainant was certainly non-cooperative, she was also experiencing what appeared to be a mental health crisis; she had informed others of her intention to take her own life, the members had been informed of that fact, and she was positioned with a rope around her neck in such a way that her expressed intention of suicide could be immediately carried out. To the members' knowledge she had no weapons, although she was holding a cordless telephone. The members' evidence shows only minimal attempts to defuse the situation in which they and the complainant found themselves. According to their evidence, the members told the complainant not to jump and to get off the counter, and Constable A warned her that she would be pepper-sprayed. No other methods were attempted in an effort to de-escalate or defuse the situation. I find that Constable A's expressed worry about being kicked or having the telephone thrown at him was insufficient to justify the level of force used, as two members were present, the complainant was not armed, she was relatively small, and she was in a precarious and difficult-to-defend position. There was very little risk to manage. The bathroom area was relatively small and cross-contamination likely, and accordingly, the use of pepper spray served only to increase the risk to the members and to the complainant. Cross-contamination did indeed occur in this instance. In light of all of these factors, I find that Constable A's decision to use pepper spray in the circumstances was neither reasonable nor consistent with RCMP policy.

With regards to the subsequent force used by Constable A, he did not explain why he pulled the complainant from a standing position on a bathroom counter to the floor as opposed to using lesser means of force. Again, the complainant is a small woman. Constable A, by his own admission, was already holding the complainant. She had cooperated with the members in helping them to remove the rope from around her neck. Pulling the complainant down a number of feet to the ground resulted in her head striking the ground with not inconsiderable force. Again, a thorough risk assessment does not justify the use of this level of force, which was certainly not conducive to producing the least amount of harm possible. Again, I find that Constable A's use of force in this instance was neither reasonable nor consistent with RCMP policy.

Constable A also stated that he struck the complainant's head using "distraction strikes", as she would not remove her arm from underneath her body. In my view, this decision is indefensible, given the complainant's relative size and the fact that two members were present. Further, lesser means of force could have been attempted by the members; for example, Constable A could have solicited the help of Constable B. I find that Constable A's use of force in this instance, as in the previous ones, was neither reasonable nor consistent with RCMP policy.

Finding: Constable A's use of force towards the complainant was neither reasonable nor consistent with RCMP policy.

Recommendation: I recommend that a senior officer review with Constable A RCMP policy regarding the use of force.

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 Commission File No. 2003-0061.