21546 replies to this topic

[57WestHills]

That was inevitable with the junk the IIO was producing. Unlike any other situation the IIO could compel statements which could in-turn be used as evidence against an officer. That's not actually the issue, the issue is (simplified) more to do with these statements then being used in horrendously unprofessional investigations.

Late Edit: no one in Canada can be compelled to provide statements except Police in certain cases. The argument here is, if statements are going to be compelled which is on the face of it a clear Charter breach, that information needs to be used responsibly.

I agree with VHF, though, the optics are horrible. Really horrible. That said part of your post speaks to the issue of the IIO of implied wrongdoing. Unless you have seen something I haven't, which is certainly possible, there's no suggestion that an officer lied in the West Shore case? But the IIO goes in and creates presumed guilt that would be so unacceptable in any other potentially criminal field.

I hope the IIO gets a lot better than they are. There's several successful equivalents in Canada. After the Delta disaster (shooting in New West) where Crown laid into IIO for the awfulness of their investigation, followed by a founded report of murder when an officer shot someone with a gun pointed at them on camera, followed by investigating officers for murder after rendering first aid the organization with its censured leader hasn't done itself any favours. But it's a complicated argument VPU needs to make to the public.

Edited by 57WestHills, 24 March 2017 - 05:32 PM.

[57WestHills]

Here is some quasi-inside commentary on the IIO's goings on: https://leoknight.wordpress.com

[VicHockeyFan]

Late Edit: no one in Canada can be compelled to provide statements except Police in certain cases. The argument here is, if statements are going to be compelled which is on the face of it a clear Charter breach, that information needs to be used responsibly.

 

Right, and I agree with that part, nobody can make them make statements.  But in almost all workplaces, if you simply fail to be accountable to the boss (or the organization that the company hires to deal with situations, to parallel the IIO), and you refuse to cooperate, you are fired.

 

So I'm all for these cops refusing to talk if they want to, but they need to be dismissed then.

[VicHockeyFan]

Here is some quasi-inside commentary on the IIO's goings on: https://leoknight.wordpress.com

 

So I read all of that with regard to police turning over weapons and uniform etc.  If that stuff is the property of VPD, then hand it over, as per the MOU between IIO and all the police forces.  If not, then quit your job, and hand it over later.

[57WestHills]

I think you missed the point. The question was why and under what authority it is / was being done, and for what purpose. Presumably the IIO operate to the same standard as the Police but over reached any legislative or common law seizure authority in overdose investigations.

[Jason-L]

I'm sure the police will be willing to now provide suspects with videos and evidence for them to review prior to making statements, so they too can refresh their memories?

[VicHockeyFan]

I'm sure the police will be willing to now provide suspects with videos and evidence for them to review prior to making statements, so they too can refresh their memories?

 

Technically the Crown will have to give that to me if I'm charged and certainly before I've made any statement.

 

But it is ridiculous in the police case.

[Gipper]

I'm sure the police will be willing to now provide suspects with videos and evidence for them to review prior to making statements, so they too can refresh their memories?

We're talking about witnesses here, not suspects. In the RCMP there is no policy preventing providing witnesses with a copy of their statement.

I personally would also refuse to provide additional statements or testify if I could not review my existing statements and notes. I would retain a lawyer if they tried to force me. I'm regularly a police witness and I always review my investigative materials before testifying, and then make references to it in court if need be.

Edited by Gipper, 25 March 2017 - 06:45 AM.

[PraiseKek]

I'm sure the police will be willing to now provide suspects with videos and evidence for them to review prior to making statements, so they too can refresh their memories?

Yes that's how it works. The accused has access to all the evidence. Anyway sounds like in this case there could be consequences for making a statement to the IIO that conflicts with the video evidence. It'd be so easy to be wrong about what you thought happened here and then you'd be in hot water. Doesn't seem fair at all. Isn't the purpose here to arrive at the truth of what happened and if the actions of the police were proper or not? How does showing the officers involved the video subvert that?

[Jason-L]

Discovery happens after the suspects/witness have given their statements or have been questioned and have been arrested, though.  Prior to the arrest and trial, while being sweated in the interview room, I'm fairly sure if you asked to see all the evidence the police had before giving a statement because you wanted to "refresh your memory" ... they would look askance at you.

[PraiseKek]

You don't have to say anything though big difference

[VicHockeyFan]

You don't have to say anything though big difference

 

And nor do the cops.  They just should not be allowed to keep their jobs if that is their stance.

 

If there is a big crashing sound, and my boss runs into the warehouse to see the forklift flipped over and stock crushed all around, with three of us standing looking at the massive amount of damage, he's going to ask what happened.  And all three of us have every right to not speak.  But I suspect that that day, all three of us would be fired if we stayed silent.

 

IIO is asking these cops what happened.  The agreement that every police agency has with IIO is that officers will speak.  So the cops not speaking, and their boss (chief) not telling them to speak, I believe they should all be fired. The investigation can carry on after that.

 

I understand that most cops hate IIO, hey that's typical TV show stuff, everyone hates "Internal Affairs".  But that's no excuse for not cooperating.

[PraiseKek]

And nor do the cops.  They just should not be allowed to keep their jobs if that is their stance.

 

If there is a big crashing sound, and my boss runs into the warehouse to see the forklift flipped over and stock crushed all around, with three of us standing looking at the massive amount of damage, he's going to ask what happened.  And all three of us have every right to not speak.  But I suspect that that day, all three of us would be fired if we stayed silent.

 

Again your example is different. "The chief of the Vancouver Police Department and several of his officers are facing legal action". Not a fair situation. Let them look at the tapes and then give their statements. Remember presumably they'd be legally punished if they gave inaccurate statements even unwittingly.

[VicHockeyFan]

Again your example is different. "The chief of the Vancouver Police Department and several of his officers are facing legal action". Not a fair situation. Let them look at the tapes and then give their statements. Remember presumably they'd be legally punished if they gave inaccurate statements even unwittingly.

 

No, they are "facing legal action" because they are refusing to cooperate.   Not for any other reason.

 

So for some reason, they are being sued to speak, rather than just being fired.

 

I mean there is probably something to this:

 

The petition says lawyer Ravi Hira, who represents one of the constables, wrote the office an email saying his client was concerned about not being allowed to refresh his memory and wanted immunity from any potential charges, including obstruction of justice.

 

 

Again, another reason fewer and fewer people trust police.

[David Bratzer]

Discovery happens after the suspects/witness have given their statements or have been questioned and have been arrested, though.  Prior to the arrest and trial, while being sweated in the interview room, I'm fairly sure if you asked to see all the evidence the police had before giving a statement because you wanted to "refresh your memory" ... they would look askance at you.

 

If you want to understand the current legal dispute between with the IIO and Vancouver PD, you need to know about the Review on the Record decision written by retired Judge Carol Baird Ellan for the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner (OPCC).  The decision, released in January 2016, was about an incident not related to the current IIO dispute (but does share some similarities with it). Judge Baird Ellan found that:

 

In the circumstances it was reasonable for Constable Batiuk to ask to view the video footage before providing evidence to the Surrey RCMP pertaining to the assault of Transit Constable Leaver. The refusal to allow her to do so was not shown to be reasonable.

 

If you don't have time to read all nine pages, go to page seven and start at the section titled "Request to View the Video".  You'll get a good overview of Judge Baird Ellan's reasons.

 

So we have the decision by Judge Baird Ellan, which will guide and influence the OPCC, but the IIO says that decision is not binding on it. They have adopted a different position on whether witness officers can view video and other real evidence prior to providing statements. The issue for the courts to decide is whether officers should be required to follow one procedure or the other, or both, or a different procedure entirely.

Edited by David Bratzer, 25 March 2017 - 08:46 PM.

[A Girl is No one]

Is it just me or did the VicPD data feed to the crimes report site get pulled? According to it, there has not been a single crime of any sort in all of Victoria, in the month of March to date. Funny, i never would have guessed with all the sirens going on non-stop.... https://www.crimereports.com

https://www.crimerep...1182861&zoom=15

[VicHockeyFan]

Yup, looks like they have ended the reporting.

[A Girl is No one]

Any idea why? This was a good tool, especially when VicPD stopped reporting off their site. They hadnot realized that their data was still transmitted to this site.
The VicPD website does not offer anything either....so we can't see what is going on in Victoria at all right now.

Edited by A Girl is No one, 26 March 2017 - 12:57 PM.

[Sparky]

The new crime reporting policy is so transparent, you can see right through it.

[VicHockeyFan]

WS RCMP can not find that chipper theft guy.  Even though they do have his name, and home address.  Guess he's hiding out.  He has other warrants too.