Vice-Chair's Interim Report – Incident Related to Neglect of Duty and Service

RCMP Act Paragraph 45.42(3)(a)

Vetted version for posting

November 30, 2007

Overview

On April 14, 2004, Constable A of an RCMP detachment in British Columbia attended an accident scene. Although the complainant was in the vehicle, Constable A was unable to determine who had been driving. The complainant showed signs of impairment and became agitated to the point where Constable A arrested her for being drunk in a public place. After emergency medical service personnel confirmed that she was not injured, Constable A did not permit her to attend the hospital with the rest of her family.

Corporal B of the RCMP detachment also attended the accident scene and was the supervising member. He was also the member originally assigned to investigate the complainant's public complaint but was later removed from that capacity at her request.

In September 2004, the complainant contacted the RCMP detachment alleging that she had been assaulted by her boyfriend. Corporal B handled the initial stages of that investigation from which no charges were ever laid.

On September 30, 2004, the complainant filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that Constable A neglected his duty by not taking her to the hospital and failing to obtain a breathalyser test as well as other tests to establish the cause for her intoxication. Subsequent to this, the RCMP established that the complainant also wished to complain of the conduct of Corporal B in that he commenced the public complaint investigation when he had a conflict of interest and that he failed to adequately investigate her allegation of assault.

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 delegate) shall send his 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 May 3, 2005 partially supported the complainant's allegations.

The complainant was not satisfied with the results of the RCMP's investigation. On August 1, 2007, she requested a review by the Commission. The Commission received the materials relating to this file on October 15, 2007.

For the reasons outlined below, the evidence leads me to conclude that Constable A properly carried out his duties at the motor vehicle crash scene. I also conclude that Corporal B should not have been involved in the public complaint investigation but that he conducted an adequate investigation into the complainant's assault complaint.

Commission's Review of the Complaint

My findings are based on a careful examination of the following materials: the complainant's statement and complaint, the statements of Corporal B and Constable A, the RCMP Commissioner's Final Report letter of disposition and public complaint investigation report, as well as other relevant material.

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 investigating and 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 available information.

First Allegation: Constable A neglected his duty by not taking the complainant to the hospital and failing to obtain a breathalyzer test as well as other tests to establish the cause for her intoxication.

The complainant provided the specifics of her complaint in her statement to the public complaint investigator. She volunteered that her recollection of the events was foggy possibly because she was drugged at the time. She recalled being at a gathering of friends with her children and that after consuming two bottles of beer she began to feel disoriented and blacked out for the next four hours.

The complainant next remembered being in an automobile accident with her children and a male passenger at approximately 1:30 a.m. on April 14, 2004. She had a memory of the RCMP and ambulance personnel attending the scene and treating everyone but her. Instead, she was arrested and taken to the holding cells where she cannot recall another four hours.

The complainant indicated that she questioned the arresting officer, Constable A, as to why he had failed to get her medical attention but that she did not receive a satisfactory response. She suspected that she had been drugged at the get-together and explained that some acquaintances of her father were present and may have drugged her in an effort to assist her father who had communicated with Child and Family Services in an attempt to have her children taken from her. It should be noted that her incarceration triggered just that. The complainant then attended her doctor's office and provided a urine sample in the hopes of ascertaining with what substance she may have been drugged. The results were negative.

When asked about whether she had been injured in the accident, the complainant stated that she had a sore chest but had no recollection of complaining of any injury to Constable A. She was more concerned that he had not identified that her signs of impairment were caused by something other than alcohol.

In relating her state of mind, the complainant noted that she was somewhat shocked after the accident and upset and screaming when her children were taken to the hospital. She also remembered a female member at the cells who asked her if she needed to go to the hospital.

Constable A stated that upon arrival at the scene he arranged for the family to be seated in a police cruiser for comfort. He believed that both adults were extremely intoxicated but neither one would respond to his questions about who was driving. As a result, he was not in a position to lay any charges in relation to the accident. He also described the complainant as belligerent and uncooperative.

The complainant was adamant that she wished to remain with her children who went to the hospital but Constable A did not feel that this was appropriate given her state of intoxication and her "loud and argumentative" demeanour. He was satisfied that the children would be comfortable with the presence of the complainant's boyfriend who, although drunk, was more cooperative and calm. He assessed the fact that the complainant's actions were causing the children distress. He also indicated that this decision was not made until she had been examined by emergency medical service personnel, who determined that she did not require any medical assistance. Lastly, he specifically recalled her saying that she was not injured.

Constable A described the complainant as showing normal signs of impairment by alcohol. He noted that her breath smelled heavily of alcohol, her speech was slurred and she was uncoordinated. He did not observe or smell any signs of other intoxicants nor did he believe that the complainant expressed any concerns about ingesting drugs.

The statement of one of the paramedics at the scene confirmed Constable A's statement.

"I attempted to examine [the complainant] but she repeatedly stated that she was fine. Other than a couple of basic questions to rule out pain or difficulty in breathing, she would not allow me to continue to examine her. She appeared to have no injuries. I later overheard my partner [...] also attempting to examine her but she was unwilling to cooperate with him either.

[...]

The information provided to me in requesting this statement indicated that the RCMP might have acted in a way that discouraged or hampered the complainant from seeking medical aid. I would like to make it quite clear to all concerned that while I was present at the incident, all RCMP members that I happened to come in contact with, or observe, handled themselves in a most professional manner."

According to Constable A, after refusing to take the complainant to the hospital she became increasingly belligerent and he became concerned about her elevated anger such that he decided to arrest her for being drunk in a public place. She was detained, incarcerated overnight and released without charges. In addition and contrary to the complainant's assertions, there were no female members present at the cells and the matron did not recall any conversation with the complainant about going to the hospital.

Lastly, Constable A indicated that he did not provide the complainant with an opportunity to blow into a breathalyser because he did not have the lawful authority to make a demand given that he could not determine who had been driving at the time of the accident.

Given the complainant's admitted impairment and difficulty recalling the events of that night and the consistency of the statements of Constable A and the paramedic, I accept the evidence of Constable  A and am satisfied that he ensured proper medical attention for the complainant.

Finding: I find that Constable A properly carried out his duties at the motor vehicle crash scene.

Second Allegation: Corporal B was in a conflict of interest when he undertook the public complaint investigation.

The public complaint investigator confirmed that the complainant objected to Corporal B's involvement in the investigation of her public complaint given that he was the supervising member at the scene of the accident. She felt that it was inappropriate that he had been assigned to investigate her complaint and that he did not divest himself of that responsibility once he determined that he was in a conflict of interest.

Corporal B advised the public complaint investigator that upon being assigned the investigation he attempted to informally resolve the matter. He acknowledged being at the scene of the incident that gave rise to the public complaint. In fact, he may have realized that under the circumstances he was in a conflict of interest, given that he told the public complaint investigator, "[...] I didn't even think she'd recognize or remember that I'd been there but she knew [...]." Based on her objections he immediately removed himself from the investigation, which supports the premise that he was aware that he should not have been engaged in the investigation in the first place.

The Commissioner's Final Report read:

Sergeant [C] was asked why Corporal [B] was assigned this investigation. He confirmed it is not unusual for Watch Commanders to conduct Public Complaint investigations into their own subordinates but agreed in this case no one checked to confirm if Corporal [B] was on the scene of the accident. Sergeant [C] agreed the optics of Corporal [B] being assigned the file could easily be construed as wrong. I agree with his assessment.

The report went on to state that although Corporal B's intentions were good, detachment managers should have dug deeper to identify the problem and assigned a different investigator. Thus, internally, the RCMP found the allegation unsubstantiated but apologized for the managerial lapse. I respectfully disagree. The onus was on Corporal B to inform his supervisor of the conflict immediately upon being assigned the file. Policy governing the investigation of public complaints is clear, "A member shall not investigate a complaint where that member may be in a conflict of interest situation." I am satisfied that the ready admission that Corporal B should not have undertaken the investigation, the fact that detachment management has been alerted to this problem and that Corporal B will receive a copy of this report will adequately serve to address this problem and, as such, I make no recommendations in this regard.

Finding: I find that Corporal B was in a conflict of interest when he undertook the public complaint investigation.

Third Allegation: Corporal B conducted an inadequate investigation into the complainant's allegation of assault.

On September 13, 2004, Corporal B investigated a complaint lodged by the complainant that her boyfriend had assaulted her. The complainant complained that Corporal B failed to follow through with his investigation.

Corporal B took a statement from the complainant confirming that she alleged that at 6:00 p.m. she returned home and found her boyfriend sitting in his car, drunk. When inside he started calling "her down" so she escorted him to the door and told him that if he did not leave she would call the police. At that point, he grabbed her by the throat and pretended to punch her. Her boyfriend then went outside and she called the police. According to the police computer records, this call was made at 6:55 p.m.

She continued and twice more mentioned that her boyfriend was drunk. She also remembered that he had threatened to "hurt her real bad." She stated that her leg and shoulder both hurt from being thrown around. She also noted that he grabbed her throat more than once on one occasion with both hands and threw her around the room.

The subject of the investigation provided a written statement on September 21, 2004, in which he stated that when he arrived at the residence the complainant started yelling obscenities at him and hitting him. He further stated that he defended himself and went into the bedroom and that she continued yelling at him to leave so he did.

The investigative file included a note from a representative of the Ministry of Children and Families who indicated that the complainant's boyfriend was at a supervised access visit until 5:40 p.m. on the date of the alleged assault and that he would not have been permitted to visit if he had been intoxicated. Corporal B estimated that it was a twenty-minute drive from there to the complainant's residence.

Corporal B did not observe any physical injuries or marks on the complainant that would have supported her allegation. This, coupled with the contradictory statement provided by the subject, the lack of corroborating witnesses and the seeming inconsistency in the complainant's description of her boyfriend's state of intoxication and that of the Ministry personnel caused Corporal B to exercise his discretion and not forward the matter to Crown counsel. This action was supported after a supervisory review, and after my assessment of the operational file in its entirety I am satisfied that Corporal B's investigation was adequate.

I also concur with the finding in the Commissioner's Final Report that Corporal B should have taken greater efforts to ensure the results of the investigation were conveyed to the complainant. It is, however, clear that steps were taken on more than one occasion to contact the complainant and she admitted to receiving one telephone message which she chose not to return believing that if it was important the RCMP would call back. Under the circumstances, I see no need to make recommendations.

Finding: I find that Corporal B conducted an adequate investigation into the complainant's allegation of assault

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

___________________________
Brooke McNabb
Vice-Chair