I'm just going to put this out there. I'm not going to format this at all. What you will see below is a set of scans from the "Investigative Report" from the OIPRD. Below that will be a page by page response to the report. Corrections to basic facts, as well as questions that should be asked.
Note, I have tried to contact the OIPRD two times and have not received a call back.
Refutation of OIPRD Report
Please note, some of the notes are mere observations.
Cover. Report is dated March 9 2012. Mail was stamped on March 8 2012.
My age is listed as 32. I was born December 12, 1980. At the time, I was 29, I am now 31.
I was not approached by two officers. I approached them, as they were blocking my path from King St. to John St. as I was going home to 250 Wellington St W.
I complied to the search after questioning the officers about the reason for the stop and if I would be allowed to pass if I did not consent. The answer was no, therefore I granted the search.
I was unable to identify them, as they were not wearing visible badges. They were wearing rain gear, which did not have a place for the name badge to be attached.
Criminal Code was not reviewed for charges:
265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
My age is once again listed at 32.
Accuracy. It was at the intersection of King St. and John St., not near.
While I asked the officers about consenting to the search, they implied that is was the Public Works Protection Act. They did not outright cite it. I asked if I could pass without the search and the answer was no. As a side note, they only searched my bag, and not myself. I had my camera under my jacket as it was raining. The strap was not visible. They did not even inquire what the bulge under my jacket was. You imply they did not examine my camera. They could not have known I had one, they did not ask about one.
You imply the officers searched and did not find my driver's license. That was not what they were searching for, as I stated to you and to them that I do not have one. They also did not ask for my wallet, which is typically where a license is stored.
My conversation with Cst. Drummond was paraphrased. It should have been noted as such.
While it is true I harbour no ill feelings towards the officers, that is not the point. It doesn't matter how small the violation is, it's a violation. I cannot harbour those feelings, as, at the time, I was under the impression that it was legal. It was not until after the revelation that the Public Works Protection Act did not apply there, as was implied by the officers when I questioned them about the search, that I concluded the search was illegal. All the ill feelings I could direct toward the officers fall solely on the feet of Chief Blair.
A more full explanation of the evidence is needed. What is “all available information”. Does this include deployment records?
Again, as I was under the impression it was legal at the time, I did not ask their names. Badges were covered by rain jackets.
**information already covered above**
I note that you do not actually determine whether the search was illegal, only that since no officers are identified, you cannot proceed further. That may be the case, but you should be able to 'substantiate' a complaint WITHOUT identifying anyone.
Based on my reading of referenced material: R v. Mann (2004), as the officers did not articulate a reason for the stop, though they implied the Public Works Protection Act, which also had no effect in the area, the search was illegal.
Again, as they did not articulate a cause, did they just not tell my what crime they though I had committed, or was about to commit? Or, did they not have cause.
Notes and Questions:
I note that we talked about the lack of preparation by those officers at that particular 'check stop'. In particular, there is no mention that there were no evidence bags, or anything in which to seize property. This was discussed and is important, as they were stopping everyone entering the area, and had no visible means of taking control of seized items.
The two investigators that were in the meeting room should have been noted.
Case Law appears to support the claim, and I would dispute the unsubstantiated finding and instead call it incomplete due to the failure to identify the officers involved. Failure on my part due to their own misconduct of not having their badges visible.
There is no note that this is also part of the systemic complaint, which was my understanding. Is this the case?
Was this solely unsubstantiated to to the lack of indentifying the officers involved, and therefore not being able to interview them? Have you ever had an “in absentia” finding of 'substantiated'?
Even if this was an investigative detention, that was not articulated either, and would only allow the officer to pat me down, which he didn't, and not search my bag, which he did.
I would surmise that a reasonable person would conclude that since I had to submit to the search to go home, and was not in the restricted area (nor trying to enter it) that I was in fact detained.
You cite Section 10 a and c of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which implies that I was detained, and yet not the other relevant sections. Those being Section 8 (Search and Seizure) and Section 9 (Arbitrary Detention).
I was not free to pass to return to my home. At the time, there was no reason to bar people from the area. The damage happened later that day. It is only reasonable to conclude that I was detained by the police. Whether it was 5 minutes or 5 days does not matter. Whether I dislike the officers for this does not matter. What matters is this was an error on the part of the police and this behaviour needs to be corrected.