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

RCMP Act Paragraph 45.42(3)(a)

Vetted Version for Posting

May 8, 2007

Overview

On the evening of February 20, 2006, the complainant was admitted to a hospital in British Columbia as the result of an overdose of prescription drugs. On February 21, 2006, the doctor signing a medical certificate under British Columbia's Mental Health Act stated that the complainant required medical treatment, care, supervision and control in a medical facility. The hospital requested that the local RCMP detachment accept custody of the complainant until she could be transported to Vancouver and admitted to a suitable facility the next day. The complainant was transported from the hospital to the detachment by Constable A. At the detachment, a brief physical altercation arose, after which the complainant was lodged in cells overnight and transported by air ambulance to Vancouver the next morning.

On May 20, 2006, the complainant filed a complaint about the conduct of Constable A. In her complaint the complainant essentially alleges that Constable A used improper force towards her. Following its investigation, the RCMP provided the complainant with a letter of disposition dated September 20, 2006 that did not support her allegations.

The Commission received the complainant's request for review on December 27, 2006. The Commission received the materials related to this complaint from the RCMP on April 17, 2007.

For the reasons outlined below, the evidence leads me to conclude that Constable A improperly used the carotid control technique on the complainant.

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 letter of disposition, I have prepared this report, which contains my finding and recommendations 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 RCMP's operational file, the prisoner report relating to the complainant, relevant medical documentation, relevant legislation and policy, and the statements of the complainant, Constable A, and Sergeant  B.

Allegation: Constable A used improper force towards the complainant.

In her statement to the public complaint investigator, the complainant stated that on February 21, 2006 at approximately noon, Constable A attended the hospital and told the complainant that she would be waiting at the detachment for the air ambulance. The complainant explained that she packed a bag and accompanied him and, once at the detachment, asked where she would be waiting. She related that Constable A informed her that she would be waiting in a cell, and that she "just couldn't understand that part. And I just refused to get in there." The complainant stated that she told Constable A that if she got in the cell, she would probably try to kill herself. According to the complainant, neither she nor Constable A was yelling. The complainant stated that she could not remember the next few minutes, but that Constable A then put her in a "choke hold" and she woke up on the floor with a handcuff on her wrist.

The complainant related that when she woke up, she repeated, "You knocked me out," to which Constable A replied, "We choked you out." The complainant also stated that some time later, while in the cell, she felt a great deal of pressure on her nose and started coughing up blood. According to the complainant, she "just got really hurt by what happened," and she took her bra off and wrapped it around her throat, choking herself for a few minutes. She explained that Sergeant  B then entered the room and removed the garment from her.

Constable A also provided a statement to the public complaint investigator. He indicated that on the relevant day, Sergeant  B requested that he attend the hospital as the complainant had been committed but could not be kept at the hospital, as she had become increasingly violent towards hospital staff. Constable A indicated that Sergeant  B advised him that the complainant would be held in cells until arrangements could be made to escort her to a mental health care facility the following day. Constable A related that this information was confirmed by a female doctor upon arrival at the hospital, who also indicated that the complainant had displayed violent and unpredictable behaviour towards hospital employees. Constable A also explained that the doctor stated that the complainant was aware she would be staying in cells until travel arrangements could be made.

Constable A stated that he then entered the complainant's room and introduced himself, and advised her that she was under arrest under the Mental Health Act. Constable A stated that he advised the complainant of her Charter rights and read her the police warning, both of which she acknowledged that she understood. Constable A described the complainant as co-operative, and indicated that she was not handcuffed. He stated that he then walked the complainant across the road to the detachment. According to Constable A, he and the complainant were alone in the cell block area, and she refused to surrender her effects and indicated that she would not be going into a cell under any circumstances. Constable A said that he explained to the complainant the need to surrender her effects, but she became increasingly agitated.

Constable A stated that he requested the complainant's sweater, at which point she kicked him in the leg and attempted to slap him. He indicated that he deflected the blow, after which the complainant told him to "[expletive]", pushed his chest, and grabbed the butt end of his service revolver, which "lasted for a second." Constable A stated:

I felt extremely threatened by this last act, realizing that my own life would be at stake if she was able to gain control of my sidearm.

We were in very close quarters – essentially within a couple feet of one another. Given her explosive nature and quick change in demeanour I felt I had no other option available to me other than to respond with a quick defensive hold. She had assaulted hospital staff, had just assaulted me, was deemed mentally unstable by hospital doctors, and now was reaching for my sidearm. I applied the Carotid hold for a second thereby limiting the [complainant]'s ability to continue grabbing my sidearm.

Constable A stated that the complainant then released her hold on his sidearm, at which point he placed her face down on the floor and immediately handcuffed her right hand. He indicated that the complainant had continued talking and yelling obscenities at him throughout the application of the hold, but became cooperative once the handcuff was applied. As a result, Constable A stated that he did not apply the second handcuff, and eventually removed the first. He also emphasized that the complainant was not unconscious at any point. He stated that Sergeant B and Corporal C had entered the booking area immediately after he had handcuffed the complainant's right hand, and Sergeant B eventually searched the complainant and placed her in cells.

Constable A stated that he began to write up the incident immediately after it occurred, but Corporal C requested assistance in relation to another matter "within a couple minutes" and, as such, Constable A recalled that his continuation report was brief.

The continuation report completed by Constable A does not include all of the information provided by him in his statement. The relevant portion states:

Writer attended hospital and escorted edp [the complainant] to detachment after [hospital staff] explained to her the reason for her being held in our custody. Once at the office, [she] refused to surrender any effects. Writer spent 10 minutes with edp going over the procedural necessity's of requiring effects. Edp refused to surrender any effects and stated she would not go into cells under any circumstances. When writer again requested her sweater, edp kicked writer in the shin and unsuccessfully attempted to slap writers face. Edp then told writer to '[expletive]' and pushed his chest. Writer placed edp in carotid hold for a couple seconds at which point Edp agreed to be cooperative, Sgt [B]/Cpl [C] observed Edp surrendering her effects [sic throughout].

Sergeant B also provided a statement to the public complaint investigator. He indicated that he had gone into the cell block in search of the complainant at the request of her brother. Sergeant B stated that when he arrived at the cell block he looked down the hall and saw Constable A holding the complainant, who was laying on her stomach on the ground with one handcuff on. According to Sergeant B, the complainant stated, "You hit me." He related that Constable A replied, "I choked you." Sergeant B advised that Constable A then removed the handcuff and the complainant was placed in the cell. Sergeant  B stated that he later spoke to Constable A, telling him, "You know, if you had some problems you should have just yelled out to us." He indicated that Constable A replied that the complainant was aggressive with him, and that he felt he took the appropriate action.

Sergeant B also indicated that at 2:05 p.m., the cell guard advised him that the complainant had put a mattress over the cell window. Sergeant B indicated that he opened the door immediately, to find that the complainant had black underwear wrapped tightly around her neck, she had black circles under her eyes, and there was some blood in her spit. He stated that he removed the underwear and removed the mattress, and went to the hospital to speak with a doctor, who attended the detachment to examine the complainant.

The prisoner report completed by Sergeant B in respect of the complainant indicated that she was depressed and had mood swings, but the "Violent" indicator was not checked off.

The RCMP's national operational policy states that the carotid control technique can be used only if an individual is threatened with death or grievous bodily harm. In this instance, Constable A asserted in his statement to the public complaint investigator, which was made six months after the incident, that he feared death or grievous bodily harm because the complainant grabbed his sidearm. However, Constable A did not mention this crucial evidence in his continuation report or to Sergeant B, who took control of the complainant immediately following Constable A. Therefore, I am affording more weight to the member's contemporaneous accounting of events in his continuation report than his later statement.

The carotid control technique, as stated above and given its potentially severe consequences, is to be used only where a member fears death or grievous bodily harm. In his continuation report, Constable A failed to articulate any rationale justifying his use of the carotid control technique as opposed to the lesser means of force available to him. While it is apparent that the complainant was combative and some degree of force was required, members should always attempt to use the least amount of force required to manage the perceived risk, which in this case was not stated by Constable A to include death or grievous bodily harm. Accordingly, I find that Constable A's use of the carotid control technique was improper.

Finding: Constable A's use of the carotid control technique was improper.

Recommendation: That a senior officer review with Constable A the RCMP's policy regarding the carotid control technique, as well as the circumstances in which the carotid control technique may be used.

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

___________________________
Brooke McNabb
Vice-Chair