# Drunk B.C. RCMP officer who passed out in drive-thru keeps job



## Jarnhamar (28 Jul 2022)

Pretty wild this guy kept his job after all of this. Sounds like his officer buddies need some bystander training.



Drunk B.C. RCMP officer who passed out in drive-thru keeps job​
A B.C. Mountie who fell asleep while drunk in his unmarked cop car at a Burger King drive-thru has lost a month's pay and will lose 15 days annual leave.
The details are laid out in a recently published April 8 RCMP Notice of Conduct decision.

After a day of drinking at several RCMP colleagues' houses, Const. Blaise Picketts hopped in his unmarked police car with his RCMP service dog in the back and drove 25 kilometres to Maple Ridge.

On the way, he scraped the police vehicle on a concrete barrier while crossing the Golden Ears Bridge before arriving at the Burger King drive-thru.
He then fell asleep behind the wheel with his credit card in his hand and the engine running in the line-up.
Staff at the fast-food restaurant attempted to wake him up but after trying for 20 minutes called the police.

When the police arrived Const. Picketts told them to "fuck off" and wouldn't cooperate with being breathalyzed. He then bit the straw of the breathalyzer and wouldn't blow hard enough.

The officers then tried to arrest Const. Picketts. The drunken cop attempted to knee one of the officers in the groin and grabbed the handcuffs they were trying to put on him.

The officers called for backup as they weren't sure they were dealing with an RCMP officer or someone that had just stolen a police car.
It took several officers to get him into a police cruiser as Const. Picketts used his legs on the side of the vehicle to prevent himself from being pushed in.

Once in the police car, he was taken to the Maple Ridge detachment but his attitude didn't change.

While being photographed he gave the middle finger to the camera.

He then needed to be handcuffed again and physically forced into the cell.

Unsurprisingly, Const. Picketts admitted he had little recollection of the events due to how drunk he was but agreed the incident took place on April 9, 2020.
The RCMP Conduct Board decision said Const. Picketts was later charged with resisting arrest and refusing a breathalyzer test.

In June 2021, he pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and was put on probation for three months and was issued a $1,000 fine. Crown prosecutors stayed the charge of refusing to provide a breathalyzer sample.

There is no explanation given for why the officer wasn't charged with drunk driving.

The decision said as an RCMP dog handler Const. Picketts was allowed to take his unmarked police vehicle home, and on his day off arranged to meet other dog handlers to train with their dogs.

Afterwards Const. Picketts drove to another RCMP member's home in Langley and stopped to pick up some alcohol.

Over the course of the afternoon Const. Picketts drove to several RCMP members' homes often stopping to buy booze on the way.

There is no mention in the decision that any of the other police officers attempted to prevent Const. Picketts from driving although they knew he'd been drinking.

At 2 a.m. he left an RCMP officer's home in Langley and drove to the Burger King in Maple Ridge where he was later arrested.

Const. Picketts service dog was in the police car when he was arrested along with a police dog drug kit, mobile workstation, and his firearm and ammunition.

"Constable Picketts engaged in very serious misconduct. His actions were reckless and put his and other people’s safety at risk, as well as that of his police service dog," the RCMP Conduct Board ruled. "His behaviour was disrespectful, uncooperative and combative while resisting arrest. His actions caused (a) minor injury to two arresting officers."

The Board said Const. Picketts is a senior member with 13 years of service and "should have known better."

The decision said the officer had repaid the $7,000 of damage he caused to the vehicle when he hit the bridge and was genuinely remorseful for his actions.

"He has taken concrete and extensive steps to address his medical conditions and to maintain his sobriety," the decision read.

The Board said if it wasn't for Const. Picketts "significant efforts" to rehabilitate himself, he may have been dismissed from the force.

However, the Board instead fined him 30 days wages – although the amount is not disclosed – and docked him 15 days of vacation.

The officer was removed from the dog handling team and won't be able to get a promotion for three years.

He will also have to make a direct apology to the officers that arrested him at the Burger King.

Mod edit to embed link to article


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Pretty wild this guy kept his job after all of this. Sounds like his officer buddies need some bystander training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I bet he's vaccinated though 😄

Why we continue to tolerate this from our Law Enforcement Agencies in this Country is beyond me?


----------



## Harris (28 Jul 2022)

Now that he's unionized, I wonder if that makes it harder to fire people?


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I bet he's vaccinated though 😄
> 
> Why we continue to tolerate this from our Law Enforcement Agencies in this Country is beyond me?


Because the RCMP need the people. I’m sure that is one reason.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jul 2022)

In case anyone wants to read the decision itself


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Jul 2022)

Harris said:


> Now that he's unionized, I wonder if that makes it harder to fire people?


Not an expert and there are others way more versed in these matters than me:  @Bruce Monkhouse 

Alcohol Charges are something a Union will absolutely not defend you over.  I was told by my current Union that the four things they won't have a leg to stand on are:.

1.  Alcohol Misconduct 
2.  Drugs
3.  Lying
4.  Stealing

One, they have no grounds to support you and also, like my rep said, "if you have those issues we don't want you working with us because you can't be trusted".


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Because the RCMP need the people. I’m sure that is one reason.


Yup. I mean it's a savvy business model when you think of it.

They don't need to fill a vacant position by firing the guy.
They squeeze 30 days of free work out of him, probably saving the detachment $9000 or more.
15 days worth of vacation are now work days- more savings.
They give $7000 back to the community by locally repairing the vehicle.
They don't have to worry about meriting him for promotion for 3 years.
The other officers who apparently ignored their drinking and driving co-worker have to behave themselves for a while since their supervisors have dirt on them.
Whopping $1000 fine given over to the crown.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Pretty wild this guy kept his job after all of this. Sounds like his officer buddies need some bystander training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's OK, that's Maple Ridge culture.

I'm sure the plea in mitigation included "at least he didn't push his busted vehicle into the Fraser River to get rid of the evidence."


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Yup. I mean it's a savvy business model when you think of it.
> 
> They don't need to fill a vacant position by firing the guy.
> They squeeze 30 days of free work out of him, probably saving the detachment $9000 or more.
> ...


Ain't that the truth LOL

This shows how much of a joke the statement  "Officer's need a clean record for criminal liability purposes" is.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jul 2022)

The union will argue that the drinking is likley a effect of the work and PTSD and they will likely have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The union will argue that the drinking is likley a effect of the work and PTSD and they will likely have a leg to stand on.


But how do they explain away the "resisting arrest" conviction?  🤣


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jul 2022)

For the record, from the decision, mitigating factors ....

"... [67] Of the numerous mitigating factors proposed by the parties, I have retained the following.

[68] First, Constable Picketts has accepted full responsibility for his actions and has made every effort to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. He admitted to the allegations and acknowledged his misconduct at the earliest opportunity. In addition, he immediately sought treatment, and pled guilty to a criminal charge arising out of this incident.

[69] Second, Constable Picketts has demonstrated genuine remorse for his actions. This is reflected in the numerous letters of reference, which describe his reaction to this incident. Constable Picketts expressed a long-standing desire to apologize to the members involved in his arrest. It is acknowledged that it would not have been appropriate for him to do so until the criminal and conduct processes were resolved. He remains prepared to do so now. It is also noted that Constable Picketts has paid reparations to the RCMP for the damage caused to the police vehicle in the amount of $7,000.

[70] Third, Constable Picketts’ performance evaluations demonstrate that, early in his service, he developed a reputation as a reliable, proactive member. He is well regarded and, in the last ten years, consistently exceeded expectations. He is recognized for his superior interpersonal and leadership skills, and proficiency as a police service dog handler. Constable Picketts has also provided numerous letters of support that speak, in detail, to his character and dedication as a member of the RCMP, including his engagement with the community and support of the Police Dog Services program. Of particular note are those from his most recent supervisor and colleagues who, with full knowledge of his misconduct, would welcome him back.

[71] Fourth, the medical evidence indicates that Constable Picketts’ conduct was related to underlying and previously undiagnosed medical conditions, namely post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol use disorder. I acknowledge that Constable Picketts was also experiencing personal stressors in his life at the time of this incident.

[72] Fifth, the Subject Member Representative submits that, while they were the result of extremely poor judgment, Constable Picketts’ actions were not malicious. While I acknowledge that Constable Picketts did not set out, on the morning of April 9, 2020, to cause harm, his decision to drive while under the influence of alcohol that afternoon, and in the early hours of April 10, 2020, was deliberate and carried with it a reasonable likelihood of causing harm. Consequently, I give very little, if any weight to this factor.

[73] Finally, and most significantly, Constable Picketts immediately sought treatment. He has taken concrete and extensive steps to address his medical conditions and to maintain his sobriety. These are set out, in detail, in the supporting documentation. His dedication to this treatment and to his ongoing health is impressive. His treating practitioners highlight several factors that support a favourable prognosis for his sustained recovery, thus reducing his risk of recidivism.

(...)

[74] Constable Picketts engaged in very serious misconduct. His actions were reckless, and put his and other people’s safety at risk, as well as that of his police service dog. The Conduct Authority Representative submits that, but for Constable Picketts’ significant efforts to rehabilitate himself, dismissal would be an appropriate outcome. I agree.

[75] I find that the proposed measures recognize the accepted legal principle that when a member’s misconduct is caused at least in part by a disability, it is appropriate for a conduct board to consider that disability in determining the appropriate conduct measures. Consequently, I am required to consider the RCMP duty to accommodate in determining the appropriate conduct measures.

[76] The medical evidence establishes that Constable Picketts’ extensive efforts to seek treatment and commitment to his ongoing health support a positive prognosis for a sustained recovery. A return to work is medically supported. That said, Constable Picketts’ rehabilitative potential is not the only factor I must consider in determining whether the proposed conduct measures are not against the public interest.

[77] The proposed financial penalty of 45 days is at the highest end of the range, short of dismissal. Its impact, while somewhat mitigated by being split between a forfeiture of pay and leave, is substantial.

[78] Additionally, Constable Picketts was preparing to take on a greater leadership role, and had applied on at least one promotional opportunity. By virtue of his ineligibility for promotion, he will have to wait three years in order to pursue these goals.

[79] The parties draw particular attention to the impact of Constable Picketts’ proposed transfer. Constable Picketts has dedicated close to a decade of hard work and extra training to achieving his goal of becoming a police service dog handler, all of which was done above and beyond the performance of his regular duties. His performance assessments and letters of support make it abundantly clear that he is passionate about, and extremely dedicated to this work. His transfer out of Police Dog Services is a substantial conduct measure, and one which, as submitted, will be profoundly felt by Constable Picketts.

[80] Collectively, the proposed measures are significant and are commensurate to the severity of the misconduct ..."


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jul 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> For the record, from the decision, mitigating factors ....
> 
> "... [67] Of the numerous mitigating factors proposed by the parties, I have retained the following.
> 
> ...



And he forgot the phone number for the local taxi service


----------



## Booter (28 Jul 2022)

He should have been fired. I’m tired of this nonsense. But hey “he’s a good guy!” And “he has PTSD”

Go do something else. Being a cop isn’t a golden ticket to a pension and twenty years of employment. Once you ve proven your decision making is broken- even if we caused it- eased out of the job into something else. It can be gentle and with assistance but it’s stupid that we just shrug and move on- it can be done with empathy. It doesn’t need to be callous but we need to expect better from the police than this.

That said- that would have been disproportionate given the fact that we keep people who commit sexual assault.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jul 2022)

Showing remorse and "seeking treatment" is the first thing defense lawyers round' here tell their clients to do.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> He should have been fired. I’m tired of this nonsense. But hey “he’s a good guy!” And “he has PTSD”
> 
> Go do something else. Being a cop isn’t a golden ticket to a pension and twenty years of employment. Once you ve proven your decision making is broken- even if we caused it- eased out of the job into something else. It can be gentle and with assistance but it’s stupid that we just shrug and move on


People screw up, we've all been there in some form or another.

I don't think failing a breathalyzer is a cause to immediately fire someone and people do deserve second chances but....

There is a being drunk and failing a breathalyzer, then there is:

1.  Being drunk
2.  Refusing to take a breathalyzer
3.  Being in your police vehicle
4.  Being in possession of a firearm
5.  Having your police dog in the car with you
6.  Crashing your vehicle
7.  Assaulting the Police Officers who are arresting you
8.  Not cooperating with the Police after you've been arrested

Did I miss anything 🤣

That's just an incredible amount of poor judgment all packaged up together.  The issues started before the incident even took place.

1.  Why was the member in possession of alcohol while operating a Government vehicle?
2.  Why was the member using a Government vehicle for non-Government business?

Just those two things get you fired at my work. 1.  Alcohol Misconduct, 2.  Stealing.

In fact, no alcohol on company property is our rule.  My hotel rooms I stay at that they pay for are company property btw.


----------



## mariomike (28 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The union will argue that the drinking is likley a effect of the work and PTSD and they will likely have a leg to stand on.



Pretty hard to get kicked out of some jobs. Transferred to another department, maybe.

Even Locomotive Engineers get re-instated.









						Arbitrator reinstates locomotive engineer fired for drinking whiskey on the job | Vey Willetts LLP | Employment Law | Ottawa
					

Generally speaking,  employers  have the right to dismiss employees that fail to report to work sober, and perform their duties in a safe manner, particularly where these requirements have been clearly communicated through written policy.




					www.vwlawyers.ca


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Jul 2022)

mariomike said:


> Pretty hard to get kicked out of some jobs. Transferred to another department, maybe.
> 
> Even Locomotive Engineers get re-instated.
> 
> ...


But he was fired 😉 aka no money other than EI.  

His case would have easily taken over a year in arbitration.  That engineer would have lost out on 170k+ in wages for just a year of termination.  He would have got some of it back when he was reinstated but not all of it.

This is different, this cop never even lost his salary.  He never got fired in the first place.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> ... this cop never even lost his salary.  He never got fired in the first place.


Correct on the second count, don't think so on the second 


Jarnhamar said:


> ... They squeeze 30 days of free work out of him, probably saving the detachment $9000 or more ...


Now is that enough?  Bash on, bye's!


----------



## mariomike (28 Jul 2022)

Harris said:


> Now that he's unionized, I wonder if that makes it harder to fire people?



Unionization seems to make it harder, but not impossible.

From another arbitration,



> It is important to remember that this decision occurred in the unionized context, where employment can generally only be ended for just cause (which is dissimilar to most non-unionized situations).



*Vey Willetts LLP*_ is an Ottawa-based employment and labour law boutique that provides timely and cost-effective legal advice to help employees and employers resolve workplace issues in the National Capital Region and across Ontario._


----------



## Spencer100 (28 Jul 2022)

All I want to say is you guys are all correct.  And being an officer of the crown does even make such things worse. But over the last few years I have very much soften my thinking on these things.  We have a mental health crisis in this country. I don't think many realize the full scope and size of the problem.  I would give guy a second chance too with conditions.  Being a police officer right now is not roses. And many other jobs too. 

As aside a had some contracted out for work at my house just before the last long week.  The contractor had a younger kid (25ish) work at house. My wife calls me at work and says the kid is doing strange things. Long story short he fell off the wagon been good for a year. Drug and booze. First I call the contractor and told him he need to first find the kid and get him safe.  After that I did tell the contractor the kid can come back to work after detox at my house.   He needs to know that he has something to look forward too or he will not have anything to work towards.  

I am not say million chances but if people are working to something we need support them.  

Covid has been very hard on people.  Some very much more than others.  It is in no way a equal event to everyone.


----------



## Booter (28 Jul 2022)

Sorry. I’m a police officer of several decades who has had both a significant substance issues and ptsd that took my first marriage and almost my life.

I was always still responsible for my actions amd knew the standard of behaviour. If I had deviated I would have had to retire rather than do all this nonsense. 

Even if it was the work that broke me- it doesn’t owe me a paycheque. Maybe help me land on my feet- but not as a cop. I am biased here though- I can admit that.


----------



## CBH99 (28 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Because the RCMP need the people. I’m sure that is one reason.


I had 3 friends apply for the RCMP all at once.  All had similar disclosure forms, all had worked together at my current side-job for years together.  

2 of the 3 were hired, fairly punctually.  The process went fairly smoothly, they were successful at Depot, and are now RCMP officers here in Alberta.

The 3rd who applied?  Deferred for 3 years.  Why?  She didn’t declare all of her tip money on her taxes, and therefore that was tax evasion.  (I guarantee the other 2 didn’t either, as I don’t think any of us kept track of our tips.)



They say they need the people, and keep lowering standards so a larger pool of folks can apply.  But then they turn around & defer good applicants for stupid reasons.


----------



## Spencer100 (28 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> Sorry. I’m a police officer of several decades who has had both a significant substance issues and ptsd that took my first marriage and almost my life.
> 
> I was always still responsible for my actions amd knew the standard of behaviour. If I had deviated I would have had to retire rather than do all this nonsense.
> 
> Even if it was the work that broke me- it doesn’t owe me a paycheque. Maybe help me land on my feet- but not as a cop. I am biased here though- I can admit that.


Fair enough.  I don't know what the right answer is.  

I know we have a problem just looking beyond this case.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> Sorry. I’m a police officer of several decades who has had both a significant substance issues and ptsd that took my first marriage and almost my life.
> 
> I was always still responsible for my actions amd knew the standard of behaviour. If I had deviated I would have had to retire rather than do all this nonsense.
> 
> Even if it was the work that broke me- it doesn’t owe me a paycheque. Maybe help me land on my feet- but not as a cop. I am biased here though- I can admit that.


----------



## Booter (28 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Fair enough.  I don't know what the right answer is.
> 
> I know we have a problem just looking beyond this case.


100% I agree with you. On both posts actually. 

I guess I just don’t think, and you aren’t saying this, that the answer is passing by going “poor fella- well back to biz as usual” and that’s an oversimplification of treatment but how do I take someone that resists arrest, even drunk, so fundamentally busted and then ever put them back under the stress of the job? Even if they get better, why would I encourage that? 

There is a crisis. You’re 100% correct.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> I am not say million chances but if people are working to something we need support them.
> 
> Covid has been very hard on people.  Some very much more than others.  It is in no way a equal event to everyone.



This guy could have easily ran over a bunch of kids. Considering he was so drunk he tried to fight off other RCMP members he could have just as easily pulled out his loaded pistol and blew away the McDonalds staff who spent 20 minutes trying to wake him up.

He got a second chance by not crashing his vehicle and dying or pulling his gun on the police. 

I don't believe there is anything wrong with telling this nice guy who has some issues that he doesn't have a future as a police officer. He shouldn't have a future as a police officer regardless of how sorry he is or how quickly he accepted responsibility for his actions. I always laugh at that, accepting responsibility for ones actions. We teach children to do that, but we're supposed to be impressed when generals or doctors or police officers do it?


I'm very curious why he wasn't charged with DUI, why the crown stayed the charges of failing to provide a breathalyzer test, and why the RCMP officers whose houses he stopped at drunk didn't do anything about him.


----------



## GR66 (28 Jul 2022)

A big question I have is whether a non-police officer would have had the same treatment if they had done the same thing.  I have no insight on how BC courts typically proceed in DUI/resisting arrest type cases but my spider-senses tell me that a random civilian may not have gotten off quite so easily.

As far as him keeping his job goes I guess I just have difficulty with someone that violently resisted their own arrest continuing in a job where they will be in a position to use potentially lethal force against others doing the exact same thing.


----------



## Booter (28 Jul 2022)

BC and impaired driving charges are a mystery on how the crown proceeds- it’s pretty normal for them to not bother. “No substantial likelihood of conviction”. 

Why the other members didn’t do anything as they drove from house to house. It’s a struggle for people close to people struggling to know how to help- what you turn an eye to, what you bring up later… it’s not “right” but it’s reality. He was moving by team mates houses…they have to work together the next morning on potentially critical incidents. 

You could say “well they wouldn’t do that for Joe public” and that may well be, and it might not be right. But I’ve cut breaks to struggling guys and brought them back to CFB Edmonton- with my card and instructions that they dodged a bullet written on it. 

When a guy is sick from the job, and you see it in them, and it in yourself, the response isn’t so clean- in practicality. According to the law and expectation it is. But In a human way it isn’t. 

Now…since they thought from his behaviour that he may have stolen the truck, and he resisted arrest, his breaks might have looked a lot different. 🤷‍♀️


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jul 2022)

With regard to his future employment will he be employed more in an administrative capacity vice a patrol member? Kinda like the canteen corporal or kit shop guy?


----------



## Booter (28 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> With regard to his future employment will he be employed more in an administrative capacity vice a patrol member? Kinda like the canteen corporal or kit shop guy?


I mean I can’t say. But…in my experience he ll be back in his substantive job. There have been instances like that- where they wind up working in an HQ- but my gut says that won’t be the case. It is more common that they continue in their normal job.

But I can’t say for certain.

He is out of the dog program though. Which would have taken him close to a decade to get into.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jul 2022)

I dunno man. When I stood in front of the judge for .10 there were a bunch of people there to say what a swell guy I was, outstanding employee, recently retired veteran with PTSD.
Crown prosecutor to judge; "Fuck that guy, hit him as hard as you can! Then kick him till he bleeds!"
Judge to Crown; "Agreed, fuck that guy!"
 No friends amongst the cats.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Jul 2022)

What happens to his dog, now that he is removed from the dog handling team?


----------



## Booter (28 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> I dunno man. When I stood in front of the judge for .10 there were a bunch of people there to say what a swell guy I was, outstanding employee, recently retired veteran with PTSD.
> Crown prosecutor to judge; "Fuck that guy, hit him as hard as you can! Then kick him till he bleeds!"
> Judge to Crown; "Agreed, fuck that guy!"
> No friends amongst the cats.


You’re SURE someone told them you were a good guy? I’m super confused. 

I have leniency because of the employment requirements of a police officer when they’re charged. I don’t agree with them generally.  Assaults associated to arrests are the one place that I can see it-  the line can be very close to what is assault and what’s justified force.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> You’re SURE someone told them you were a good guy? I’m super confused.
> 
> I have leniency because of the employment requirements of a police officer when they’re charged. I don’t agree with them generally.  Assaults associated to arrests are the one place that I can see it-  the line can be very close to what is assault and what’s justified force.


Drunk driving is drunk driving, regardless of employment. It effected my job too, but tough shit for me, and it should have been tough shit for this guy.


----------



## Booter (28 Jul 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> What happens to his dog, now that he is removed from the dog handling team?


I haven’t been a handler. I’ve seen guys have to leave the program for a few reasons though- it depends on where the dog is in their career. Can be pretty wide open. 

I am outside my lane on that though


----------



## Booter (28 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Drunk driving is drunk driving, regardless of employment. It effected my job too, but tough shit for me, and it should have been tough shit for this guy.


But again- the crown elected not to pursue the charge.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> But again- the crown elected not to pursue the charge.


Colour me shocked.


----------



## Booter (28 Jul 2022)

Constable Blaise Picketts - Royal Canadian Mounted Police
					






					decisions.rcmp.gc.ca
				




In case anyone is interested

From the decision- he was also conduct disciplined on two charges in 2015. (Non criminal- JUST code of conduct) Unfortunately those ones are not available online.

They say unrelated- but that doesn’t sound like spotless record. Two disciplines- then criminal resist arrest- and more conduct?


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> You’re SURE someone told them you were a good guy? I’m super confused.
> 
> I have leniency because of the employment requirements of a police officer when they’re charged. I don’t agree with them generally.  Assaults associated to arrests are the one place that I can see it-  the line can be very close to what is assault and what’s justified force.


You know you're up against it when three of the four parties involved (police, crown, and judge) are all government paycheques, and little old lawyerless me is on the other side. bringing a spork to a sword fight. This guy had backup.


----------



## Spencer100 (28 Jul 2022)

I never understand the resisting arrest.  What you think is going to happen.  Oh he fought back we should let him go now? Like that's going to work.  But I guess he was out of his mind. 

Everyone here has made good points.  The whole things stinks.  Things like this look bad to the general public. "its more of the old boys protecting the boys" feel to it.  This erodes public confidence in the police.  

Then would a better solution be ok you keep a job but you are no longer in commission as a constable?  No uniform no gun etc.  There is always tons of work at the station.  Maybe not destroying his pension?  

In the end nothing here looks good.  

I wish we could have solutions to fix our deep problems.  More government programs are not the answer either.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> I wish we could have solutions to fix our deep problems.  More government programs are not the answer either.


Wanna see people get serious fast and knock off the_ but he's a good guy_ mantra?

Take everyone whose house he visited and didn't stop him, and doc them 30 days pay+15 days vacation.
Double it for the supervisor.


----------



## lenaitch (28 Jul 2022)

I don't know about the BC courts but I'm not surprised that the Impaired charge was dropped.  A conviction was registered against a name on the docket; the Court got to move on.  He was smart enough to plead to the charge that didn't have a mandatory d/l suspension attached to it.

Assuming the RCMP like every other civilian employer, it's pretty tough these days to summarily cut loose an employee who presents a recognized medical condition as a defence (assuming it was actually tendered as a medically diagnosed condition), particularly when it is a 'first offence' and particularly when the employment itself is a contributor to the condition (apparently he had a prior discipline hearing but no indication whether it was related or similar).

The days of both sweeping things under the rug or summarily unloading a problem child are hopefully behind us.  I am surprised that hearing officer did not order some kind of treatment plan for his condition.  Even if not ordered, the RCMP would be well advised to sit down with him a mutually agree to one, both to help recover an employee and for its own protection.

I don't know the terms of the National Police Association, but in the OPP, he would have little chance of legal indemnification as he was neither on duty or acting in his capacity.


----------



## Booter (28 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Wanna see people get serious fast and knock off the_ but he's a good guy_ mantra?
> 
> Take everyone whose house he visited and didn't stop him, and doc them 30 days pay+15 days vacation.
> Double it for the supervisor.


Super funny you say that. I recently chased an NCO chain demanding flesh on some stuff- people are NOT used to it. 

It was a use of force thing. Had slipped by three NCOs then I was in meeting where everyone was talking about how we were going to get the kid on conduct. 

I was happy to see a room ready to get some blood- because I wanted some answers on the NCO slip ups that allowed it to happen. Then the officer that made that decision overlooking them. Asking what our responsibility was for what we were looking at…

No appetite, because it’s not about accountibility. It’s because we have to do something. Not because we believe it’s the right thing to do. 

Systems busted. Bunch of uniforms taking hero shots for the ‘gram while crying and whining they shouldn’t be Held to a higher standard than the public because that’s not fair.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> Super funny you say that. I recently chased an NCO chain demanding flesh on some stuff- people are NOT used to it.
> 
> It was a use of force thing. Had slipped by three NCOs then I was in meeting where everyone was talking about how we were going to get the kid on conduct.
> 
> ...



Sounds like #7 

*Sir Robert Peel's Policing Principles*

To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
*To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.*
To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.









						Sir Robert Peel's Policing Principles
					

Sir Robert Peel's Policing Principles In 1829, Sir Robert Peel established the London Metropolitan Police Force. He became known as the “Father of Modern




					lawenforcementactionpartnership.org


----------



## lenaitch (28 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> Super funny you say that. I recently chased an NCO chain demanding flesh on some stuff- people are NOT used to it.
> 
> It was a use of force thing. Had slipped by three NCOs then I was in meeting where everyone was talking about how we were going to get the kid on conduct.
> 
> ...


Seen it as well.  Everybody's keen for a constable's head on a pike but the room gets real silent when talk shifts to the NCO or higher that either allowed it to happen or created a situation where it was inevitable.


----------



## Booter (28 Jul 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Seen it as well.  Everybody's keen for a constable's head on a pike but the room gets real silent when talk shifts to the NCO or higher that either allowed it to happen or created a situation where it was inevitable.


You’re incompetent or culpable. Choose which one.

Like not you. lol but the supervisors are responsible so choose which way you failed- you know?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> Super funny you say that. I recently chased an NCO chain demanding flesh on some stuff- people are NOT used to it.
> 
> It was a use of force thing. Had slipped by three NCOs then I was in meeting where everyone was talking about how we were going to get the kid on conduct.
> 
> ...


Do you need me to write my MP to have you nominated when the Commish role comes up again?

If I was this guy's boss, I would have been gunning to hang him, but not for the DUI.

It would have been for all the other shit he chose to do when he was sober, like use a government vehicle to go buy booze and party at his buddy's place.

There are some questionable ethics at play here that can't really be explained away by "I'm all broken and screwed up, woah is me".


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jul 2022)

Coast to coast drunk Horsemen, apparently.  In Nova Scotia, though, they sexually assault other Mounties.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/rcmp-sexual-assault-pulsifer-1.6527548?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar


----------



## Booter (29 Jul 2022)

How would you describe the forces “coast to coast”? 

Also- you’ll note that it’s Commissioner Lucki on that decision making sure he kept his job.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jul 2022)

> The case pits the wishes of the local division against Commissioner Brenda Lucki, who — while promising publicly that sexual assault would not be tolerated under her watch — agreed to let the member keep his job.



Blue version of Jon Vance eh?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> How would you describe the forces “coast to coast”?
> 
> Also- you’ll note that it’s Commissioner Lucki on that decision making sure he kept his job.


Lots of good Police Officers out there.  I am friend's with three RCMP Officers myself and they are all good people.  One is a super intelligent/highly educated guy whose CV would probably put most of the Senior Leadership to shame.

That being said, it seems certain institutions, particularly ones at the Federal level, have issues dealing with their bad apples.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Do you need me to write my MP to have you nominated when the Commish role comes up again?
> 
> If I was this guy's boss, I would have been gunning to hang him, but not for the DUI.
> 
> ...



It makes for great movies though:









						The Choirboys (1977) - IMDb
					

The Choirboys: Directed by Robert Aldrich. With Charles Durning, Louis Gossett Jr., Perry King, Clyde Kusatsu. A group of Los Angeles cops decide to take off some of the pressures of their jobs by engaging in various forms of after hours debauchery.




					www.imdb.com


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> How would you describe the forces “coast to coast”?
> 
> Also- you’ll note that it’s Commissioner Lucki on that decision making sure he kept his job.


🤦‍♂️ Honestly I don’t know if there is a solution to cases like these.


----------



## Booter (29 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> 🤦‍♂️ Honestly I don’t know if there is a solution to cases like these.


Stop trying to say it’s something else- it’s sexual assault and fire them out of a cannon. 🫡


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> Stop trying to say it’s something else- it’s sexual assault and fire them out of a cannon. 🫡


Yes. I agree. We’ve - society- given in to people who don’t like harsh language.


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Yes. I agree. We’ve - society- given in to people who don’t like harsh language.


To be fair, no need to use “harsh” language to be strict. I find people may be scared of a person using “harsh” language but don’t respect the person, and if that person is a figure of authority, will lose respect in the institution. There are very effective ways to be polite and respectful while being strict.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> To be fair, no need to use “harsh” language to be strict. I find people may be scared of a person using “harsh” language but don’t respect the person, and if that person is a figure of authority, will lose respect in the institution. There are very effective ways to be polite and respectful while being strict.


This hasn't been my experience with certain types of personalities, especially those found in trades like the infantry (which I think a lot of junior police may have the same type of mentality).


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> This hasn't been my experience with certain types of personalities, especially those found in trades like the infantry (which I think a lot of junior police may have the same type of mentality).


Perhaps when they are junior and impressionable but that perspective generally changes when people mature. By that point, the damage to the institution’s reputation has already been done. Strict but respectful is what I preach.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Perhaps when they are junior and impressionable but that perspective generally changes when people mature. By that point, the damage to the institution’s reputation has already been done. Strict but respectful is what I preach.



So a CO yelling at a junior person, in front of everyone, for a very minor issue wouldn't count as 'respectful' I'm guessing?


----------



## mariomike (30 Jul 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> It makes for great movies though:





daftandbarmy said:


> The Choirboys (1977) - IMDb
> 
> 
> The Choirboys: Directed by Robert Aldrich. With Charles Durning, Louis Gossett Jr., Perry King, Clyde Kusatsu. A group of Los Angeles cops decide to take off some of the pressures of their jobs by engaging in various forms of after hours debauchery.
> ...



Book was great. Saw the movie at the show when it came out. Was looking forward to it.  Walked out half-way through.  



> Author Joseph Wambaugh disowned, disavowed, and de-credited himself from this adaptation of his book "The Choirboys". Wambaugh was so incensed with this adaptation of his book, considering it to be such a poor adaption, that he sued the production, and was successful in having his name removed from the film's credits.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Perhaps when they are junior and impressionable but that perspective generally changes when people mature. By that point, the damage to the institution’s reputation has already been done. Strict but respectful is what I preach.


You haven't worked in a blue collar environment before have you?  😁


----------



## Remius (30 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You haven't worked in a blue collar environment before have you?  😁


I remember my first job as a meat cutter.  Some of the butchers had quite the temper.  And made quite a few racist comments lol.  A lot we’re ex cons.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> I remember my first job as a meat cutter.  Some of the butchers had quite the temper.  And made quite a few racist comments lol.  A lot we’re ex cons.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Perhaps when they are junior and impressionable but that perspective generally changes when people mature. By that point, the damage to the institution’s reputation has already been done. Strict but respectful is what I preach.


You are right in that respect. What I am referring to is the softening of language over the last 30 years.  For instance Its not "Rape" its "Sexual Assault".

Sometimes society needs to hear the cold hard truth - some of the police are corrupt and vile people, as are some CAF members as are some in corporate Canada - and the government.


----------



## Remius (30 Jul 2022)

I also find that people’s feelings do get hurt a lot more even when being strict but respectful.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> You are right in that respect. What I am referring to is the softening of language over the last 30 years.  For instance Its not "Rape" its "Sexual Assault".
> 
> Sometimes society needs to hear the cold hard truth - some of the police are corrupt and vile people, as are some CAF members as are some in corporate Canada - and the government.



The example you provided (rape vs sexual assault) was not a softening of the language but a change in the Criminal Code that removed the focus of a certain category of offences from "sex" to "violence".  Before the 1982 change "rape" was a narrowly defined offence that required non-consensual penetration of the vagina.  While prosecuting sexual offences may not be vastly more successful than before the changes, the situation is better.


And coincidentally in the matter of "consent", the Supreme Court recently ruled "*that when someone is required by their partner to wear a condom during sex but they do not, they could be guilty of sexual assault".* 

The case in brief:





						Supreme Court of Canada - 39287
					






					www.scc-csc.ca
				




And the full decision





						R. v. Kirkpatrick - SCC Cases
					

This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court.




					decisions.scc-csc.ca


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You haven't worked in a blue collar environment before have you?  😁



That's a great point. In theory people maturing as they get older makes sense. In practice it's not always the case. Some people seem to stop maturing when they join the CAF (or I'd guess, the police force). I've been to enough police parties to comfortably say they can act like a bunch of Jr Ranks soldiers on full send.

If you have an experienced NCO (military or police) a polite but stern talking to may go in one ear and out the other. Possibly because they've had a career of weak leaders not holding them accountable or people not following through with ultimatums. I've seen it often and I can imagine buddy from this story driving around absolutely trashed (who of course _is a really good guy/excellent reviews!_) has behaved similarly in the past. 

Both our organizations seem to have a bad habit of getting serious about holding people accountable once they hit the front page.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Jul 2022)

If a civilian had done any of these things, we know what the outcome would be. Double standard indeed.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> I remember my first job as a meat cutter.  Some of the butchers had quite the temper.  And made quite a few racist comments lol.  A lot we’re ex cons.


Millwrights:  Hold our beers!


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jul 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Millwrights:  Hold our beers!



The swear words alone....


----------



## Eaglelord17 (31 Jul 2022)

In my place of employment (unionized) anyone with a alcohol or drug problem is basically given a freebee provided they do rehab. That being said, there is circumstances that they likely would still be fired, such as operating a company vehicle well intoxicated. Especially if they then fought with security (or the cops) when being removed from the property.

I have no doubt this was a serious mistake on the part of the member, and I hope he sorts his life out, but in my opinion he shouldn't be a cop any longer. How can we have him arresting drunk drivers who are likely going to get a harsher sentence than he received (criminally, and personally both in social aspects and job aspects), and they wouldn't even have a resisting charge in there? 

In terms of why people think the cops are corrupt, why is it the most serious charge DUI, was left out? Maybe its things like that which causes people to believe there is a serious double standard in effect.


----------



## mariomike (31 Jul 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> In my place of employment (unionized) anyone with a alcohol or drug problem is basically given a freebee provided they do rehab.



In my former place of employment ( unionized ), ours would be sent to Runnymede First Responders PTSD Rehab Centre  in Toronto (named Station 3434).

After that, likely some time at The Farm. They operate a working farm near the Don Valley.
Or, maybe the ferries.

All sorts of places for some healthy "work-hardening" rehab prior to return to 
9-1-1 Operations.

Eventually they are returned. Whether they want to or not.



Eaglelord17 said:


> Maybe its things like that which causes people to believe there is a serious double standard in effect.



You have to watch your off-duty conduct in some jobs.



> Certain jobs require a high level of skill and a high level of trust from both employers and the public. For employees working in those types of positions, it’s possible that off-duty behaviour can call into question that trust, if it demonstrates poor judgment. And if an employer no longer has confidence that an employee has the judgment to perform a job of high skill and responsibility, the result could be dismissal.





> An Ontario arbitrator upheld the dismissal of a Toronto paramedic after his judgment was called into question due to off-duty conduct (_Toronto (City) and CUPE, Local 416 (Sankar), Re_, 2013 CarswellOnt 3511 (Ont. Arb. Bd.)).



No criminal charges. Just questionable off-duty behavior.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jul 2022)

Here is an interesting comparison.
Link

This Edmonton police officer was demoted for 3 years (losing $35K in wages) for lying about a pistol magazine pouch he used. It was for a timed competition to join their tactical team.

He's also attending some "off ramp" program for officers with discipline problems though it doesn't explain what attending this program entails.



In the article it states:
"Woitt *repeatedly changed his story about where he acquired the pouch*, initially claiming the EPS firearms training unit issued it to him. He *eventually admitted he bought the item himself.*"

Yet goes on to say:
"“*Const. Woitt took responsibility for his misconduct* and the chief provided an opportunity to Const. Woitt based on this specific and unique set of circumstances.”

How is repeatedly lying about what you did until you're cornered into telling the truth taking responsibility?


It makes sense that police officers guilty of deceit sis normally let go. I can imagine a defense lawyer would use that to their advantage in court.


----------



## brihard (31 Jul 2022)

Sorry, I've been wanting to reply to this, just wasn't in front of a computer past couple days and didn't want to bash this out on my phone.

I won't speak to whether I think the conduct decision was appropriately severe or not. I'll offer some observations, facts and insights mostly based on things others have said in the first page or two of this thread. The only opinion I'll give on the constable in question is that he likely saved his job by throwing himself as fast as possible on every sword that was presented. I suspect that had he tried to fight at any point, he would have faced dismissal. I do note that it was a joint sanctions submission from both the employer and the member's side. Conduct authorities will not lightly deviate from joint submissions.



Harris said:


> Now that he's unionized, I wonder if that makes it harder to fire people?



Not in any direct way. Unionization hasn't changed the rules at all. What's been happening is that the rules and procedures around conduct matters have been applied more consistently, and subject members are better able to be afforded due process. There were a lot of chickenshit conduct matters in the past. Much less of that now, and management is being held to account on matters like the required timelines for conduct process, and not being able to just get away with undue delay. But none of that appears to be a factor here. 

The union won't touch off duty criminal stuff. Your problem. The union will assist members and, in some cases, provide legal representation in internal conduct matters. In this case, he pled guilty to the criminal offence of resist arrest at the earliest opportunity. From reading the decision, he had external counsel (my guess is provided by the union) on the conduct matter; they would have likely just been involved in drafting his written submission and arguing for mitigating circumstances.



Jarnhamar said:


> Yup. I mean it's a savvy business model when you think of it.
> 
> They don't need to fill a vacant position by firing the guy.
> They squeeze 30 days of free work out of him, probably saving the detachment $9000 or more.
> ...



Just for context, 30 days docked pay plus the loss of 15 days of annual leave, 45 days x 8 hour, that's about 360 hours. As a 15 year constable, that means he's out about $20,100. That's the direct and immediate cost of the conduct decision. He's also out of the police dog program, which is an absolutely huge hit for anyone who's made it to that. This is not a minor punishment. Being out of PDS will also have a major financial hit for lost on call pay and lost overtime.


Humphrey Bogart said:


> 1.  Why was the member in possession of alcohol while operating a Government vehicle?
> 2.  Why was the member using a Government vehicle for non-Government business?



Not unusual for Police Dog Service members to have take-home vehicles, and in some cases (e.g., while on call, or in smaller communities) to do a lot of their personal business in them; the caveat is they have their gear with them, and can immediately respond to stuff. Obviously this does not square with being drunk and I'm not making excuses or minimizing anything there. One of the three conduct counts was for using his issued vehicle off duty outside of permitted norms. You can't be drinking if you're on call, and vice versa. If you aren't on call, use your own car.



Jarnhamar said:


> I'm very curious why he wasn't charged with DUI, why the crown stayed the charges of failing to provide a breathalyzer test, and why the RCMP officers whose houses he stopped at drunk didn't do anything about him.





GR66 said:


> A big question I have is whether a non-police officer would have had the same treatment if they had done the same thing.  I have no insight on how BC courts typically proceed in DUI/resisting arrest type cases but my spider-senses tell me that a random civilian may not have gotten off quite so easily.



A few things on this::

BC basically doesn't prosecute impaired driving cirminally if there aren't injuries. They went to the Immediate Roadside Prohibition program years ago; the whole thing is done roadside off a roadside breath test. If you fail the test or refuse, 90 day license suspension on the spot, significant fees, huge insurance hit. It never goes to court, you don't eat a criminal record, but there's also extremely limited means and grounds to appeal. Fantastic system for dealing with first offence / one-offs. I'm surprised he was actually criminally charged in the first place and that crown approved charges. I suspect they erred on the heavy side given the circumstances. 


If you're doing a roadside breath test, usually that means you aren't confident enough to outright charge someone with impaired driving. Roadside tests are off a threshold of reasonable suspicion; a charge for impaired is reasonable grounds to believe. A roadside breath test is primarily a tool to elevate your suspicion to belief (e.g., screen in alcohol, screen out medical/fatigue). But this means that if you demand a roadside test and someone refuses, it's tough to articulate that you have the grounds to charge them with straight impaired. The punishment for refusal is the same anyway, so you just lay that charge (again though, B.C.- they usually won't even do that).


A random civilian likely would have seen the same criminal charges or less. Now that I reflect further, probably the only reason he was criminally charged with refusal was to have a criminal charge to underpin the resisting arrest charge, else it would be 'arrest for what?' Last guy I got passed out drunk in a drive through (I was just trying to get my nuggets, dammit!) was charged with impaired, but that wasn't in BC. He was convicted at trial and fined I think $2400 with a year's driving prohibition. That was a stiff fine, but he was obliterated. No professional consequences; he owed his own business.



Booter said:


> Why the other members didn’t do anything as they drove from house to house. It’s a struggle for people close to people struggling to know how to help- what you turn an eye to, what you bring up later… it’s not “right” but it’s reality. He was moving by team mates houses…they have to work together the next morning on potentially critical incidents.
> 
> You could say “well they wouldn’t do that for Joe public” and that may well be, and it might not be right. But I’ve cut breaks to struggling guys and brought them back to CFB Edmonton- with my card and instructions that they dodged a bullet written on it.
> 
> ...



It's not clear from the statement of facts if anyone saw him actually impaired at any time when he was driving. IT said he consumed alcohol and then went to buy more around 4-5 p.m., but then it sounds like they were static. Might have been that by the time he left at 2 a.m., everyone else was gone or asleep. Or maybe they weren't, and should have stopped him. I hope (and suspect) a code of conduct investigation was initiated into this. I'd be surprised if it wasn't, though if it was a lower level conduct meeting and not a conduct hearing there would not be a publicly available decision (as of course you know, Booter- this for the benefit of others).



OldSolduer said:


> With regard to his future employment will he be employed more in an administrative capacity vice a patrol member? Kinda like the canteen corporal or kit shop guy?



RCMP doesn't have regular members employed as canteen queens; there are administrative jobs that require police knowledge/skills/abilities, or he may simply be back to the road on general duty patrol. Given the dire situation for resources in B.C., my WAG is he's back to the road. That said I have no idea if his medical state allows that. Re-roling a dog guy is challenging; they've been siloed pretty significantly for many years.



lenaitch said:


> I am surprised that hearing officer did not order some kind of treatment plan for his condition.  Even if not ordered, the RCMP would be well advised to sit down with him a mutually agree to one, both to help recover an employee and for its own protection.
> 
> I don't know the terms of the National Police Association, but in the OPP, he would have little chance of legal indemnification as he was neither on duty or acting in his capacity.



Effectively they did, though with a nuance: hearing officers cannot order specific treatment plans. They're cops, not doctors. However, the hearing officer DID order "a direction to undergo medical treatment as specified by a Health Services Officer;" and, "a direction to abide by the conditions set out in the _Aftercare Treatment Agreement _signed on April 29, 2020". So he's ordered to abide by a treatment plan crafted bny the RCMP health services doctor. The 'aftercare treatment agreement' will generally be 'if you consume alcohol again, you're done'.

On the general theme of medical issues/PTSD contributing to conduct- they're mitigating factors, though they don't excuse culpability. A reality of policing is a LOT of the guys and girls are fucked up to some extent. It's a reality of spending all of your working days basically dealing with the worst stuff people go through. The policing world is maybe 10-15 years behind CAF in getting a grip on this stuff, but with far fewer supporting medical resources, with a greater stigma problem, and with a heavier and more unrelenting workload in many cases.

None of this excuses misconduct. It's simply a factual reality that the very nature of the profession and what it has to deal with stack risk factor on top of risk factor. In the aggregate, there WILL be personal behavioural and conduct issues at times. They need to be handled firmly and appropriately, both at the conduct level and the medical level. It's important, in the grand scheme of things, to try to incentivize the recognitions and seeking of help for medical conditions. Also, yes, PTSD, substance dependency etc are disabilities that invoke the legal obligations an employer faces to accommodate.

So... This dude's career is hanging by a thread, and he's already lost a specialization that many members will spend the whole first decade of their career pushing for and in many cases never get. He REALLY screwed himself. Over and above the cost of repairs to the vehicle he damaged, he's also out $20,000 just from the pay and vacation getting docked... So that's hefty. His career progression will be limited, he cannot promote for three years (it notes that he was actively applying to) and that will have a knock on effect on his eligibility for anything in future. Even though eligible, this conduct finding will strike him from most good career opportunities and progression down the road. This could have gone either way in terms of dismissal or very severe non-dismissal sanctions. He's very lucky that he received considerable compassion form the conduct authority.

As for why things went the way they did in terms of why certain charges were stayed, what role (limited) the union would have played, and such, hopefully I've shed a little bit of light.


----------



## Booter (31 Jul 2022)

those are insightful and well articulated points. Especially the BC impaired stuff. thanks Brihard. However we ll just have to disagree on what the association does for these folks. Are you a sub rep or whatever it is they call those now? 

We ll also have to agree to disagree on the practical career repercussions- but he did lose his PDS spot which is a substantial loss like you said. Really there isn’t anything else to be said by me on this case in particular that is deranged frothing at the mouth where I’m projecting a million other things at once


----------



## brihard (31 Jul 2022)

Booter said:


> those are insightful and well articulated points. Especially the BC impaired stuff. thanks Brihard. However we ll just have to disagree on what the association does for these folks. Are you a sub rep or whatever it is they call those now?


Not sure what there is to disagree on WRT what the union does or doesn’t do? I didn’t speak to ‘ought to’, just the plain facts that they won’t touch off duty criminal, and will provide assistance on all Code of Conduct, which may or may not include legal representation- generally that depends on the member’s jeopardy, the complexity of the file, or if there is a larger collective interest in defending a certain case. Sometimes it may just be a union rep sitting in on a conduct meeting where someone gets docked right hours’ pay for something minor, or on the other end it might be the union hiring a lawyer to try to save someone’s job. I’m not making any value judgment here, just describing what does happen.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> The only opinion I'll give on the constable in question is that he likely saved his job by throwing himself as fast as possible on every sword that was presented.


Yup. He's not stupid. Any soldier knows the best COA when you F-up is to throw yourself on a sword as quickly as possible. Guessing even more so for police. Knows the system, probably why he went for the resisting arrest guilty plea as soon as possible (which was dropped anyways IIRC)



brihard said:


> Just for context, 30 days docked pay plus the loss of 15 days of annual leave, 45 days x 8 hour, that's about 360 hours. As a 15 year constable, that means he's out about $20,100. That's the direct and immediate cost of the conduct decision. He's also out of the police dog program, which is an absolutely huge hit for anyone who's made it to that. This is not a minor punishment. Being out of PDS will also have a major financial hit for lost on call pay and lost overtime.


That's a bit better of a punishment then I guesstimated. Still pretty damn lucky to keep a $100K+ a year federal job with benefits and pension. Thanks for the numbers.


I wonder how this would play out for a brinks security guard.
Driving around a vehicle drunker that Mr Lahey on a long weekend. Loaded pistol, passing out behind the wheel and assaulting (and injuring) multiple police officers and resisting arrest. Refusing the breathalyzer and damaging police equipment on purpose.

I'll defer to your knowledge on the subject of course but I have a hard time believing a civilian would be treated the same way as this guy.



brihard said:


> Re-roling a dog guy is challenging; they've been siloed pretty significantly for many years.





brihard said:


> So... This dude's career is hanging by a thread, and he's already lost a specialization that many members will spend the whole first decade of their career pushing for and in many cases never get.



Why is dog handling so sought after/such a hard to achieve specialty? Figure there's a self-care component attached to it?

Come to think of it one of the last dog cops I worked with was really weird about his dog. We were doing E&E and he was talking about how to beat a dog tracking team then started going off on a tangent about if we ever hurt his dog he would kill all of us and was getting really emotional. I think he even said he would cut peoples heads off. The Pl WO shut the training down pretty quick. Pretty sad in hindsight.


----------



## brihard (31 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Yup. He's not stupid. Any soldier knows the best COA when you F-up is to throw yourself on a sword as quickly as possible. Guessing even more so for police. Knows the system, probably why he went for the resisting arrest guilty plea as soon as possible (which was dropped anyways IIRC)
> 
> 
> That's a bit better of a punishment then I guesstimated. Still pretty damn lucky to keep a $100K+ a year federal job with benefits and pension. Thanks for the numbers.
> ...


No, he ate the resist arrest conviction. They stayed the refusal to provide a sample charge. Probably a plea deal, saves the court time and resources. Normal anywhere, basically expected in BC. Not a lot goes to trial. The system’s super overwhelmed. I’ll stand by what I said that a civilian would have similarly seen the impaired refusal dropped on a plea deal, particularly given the immediate roadside prohibition.

Re Police Dog Services- why’s it so sought after? Well, it’s pretty cool, you’re constantly catching bad guys or saving lost people, you go to all of the good calls, get to work high risk arrests and warrant executions, and if you’re not as big on the investigative side of things, it frees you from really doing any of that. You just run your tracks, and train. Plus you get cool gear, a take home vehicle, on call pay, and a Belgian Malinois. But yes, some of the dog guys are weird and I can think of one I really dislike.


----------



## mariomike (31 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Plus you get cool gear, a take home vehicle, on call pay, and a Belgian Malinois.



We called it Standby Pay. But, I guess it's the same thing. If you don't mind me asking, how much is on call / standby pay?

We received three (3) hours pay at regular straight time hourly rate for each twenty-four (24) hour period within which you were assigned to stand by.


----------



## brihard (31 Jul 2022)

mariomike said:


> We called it Standby Pay. But, I guess it's the same thing. If you don't mind me asking, how much is on call / standby pay?
> 
> We received three (3) hours pay at regular straight time hourly rate for each twenty-four (24) hour period within which you were assigned to stand by.


For every four hours on call, one hour of straight time pay. The expectation is you can grab your gear and go. Members working up north where they’re basically on call all the time outside of work hours make a ton of money. But your work is your life.

There’s a lesser rate of 1 in 8 where you basically stay in the area and on reasonably short notice can return to where your stuff is, gear up, and go.

I suspect if dog guys are on call, it’ll be the first, higher rate.


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> For every four hours on call, one hour of straight time pay. The expectation is you can grab your gear and go. Members working up north where they’re basically on call all the time outside of work hours make a ton of money. But your work is your life.
> 
> There’s a lesser rate of 1 in 8 where you basically stay in the area and on reasonably short notice can return to where your stuff is, gear up, and go.
> 
> I suspect if dog guys are on call, it’ll be the first, higher rate.


Sounds like my daughter and hubby are in for a fun time. He's posted to Pond Inlet some time this year.


----------



## brihard (31 Jul 2022)

Pond’s busy. Your daughter’s going to learn to be a nurse, jail guard, crisis counsellor, and substitute teacher. That’s quite a posting for someone going accompanied.


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Pond’s busy. Your daughter’s going to learn to be a nurse, jail guard, crisis counsellor, and substitute teacher. That’s quite a posting for someone going accompanied.


She's a county peace officer, so done her time watching over cells.


----------



## lenaitch (31 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> For every four hours on call, one hour of straight time pay. The expectation is you can grab your gear and go. Members working up north where they’re basically on call all the time outside of work hours make a ton of money. But your work is your life.
> 
> There’s a lesser rate of 1 in 8 where you basically stay in the area and on reasonably short notice can return to where your stuff is, gear up, and go.
> 
> I suspect if dog guys are on call, it’ll be the first, higher rate.


That's actually pretty decent.  The OPP has stand-by pay but it has to be approved at a very senior level and in 31 years I honestly don't recall it being invoked - maybe once.  Our Handlers get a big honkin' SUV, a paid-for at-home kennel, food and vet bills covered, plus all the o/t they can earn.  I'm not aware of any special pay treatment.  Even in small remote detachments (admittedly, non arctic) there is no stand-by provision; the clock starts when the phone rings.

Most handlers that I know/knew were big into the outdoors, fitness and, or course, animals.  I think many would be Tactical if they weren't Handlers.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (31 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Yup. He's not stupid. Any soldier knows the best COA when you F-up is to throw yourself on a sword as quickly as possible. Guessing even more so for police. Knows the system, probably why he went for the resisting arrest guilty plea as soon as possible (which was dropped anyways IIRC)
> 
> 
> That's a bit better of a punishment then I guesstimated. Still pretty damn lucky to keep a $100K+ a year federal job with benefits and pension. Thanks for the numbers.
> ...


I don't think I would be able to take this guy seriously if he pulled me over.  "Where is my ticket Randy Bo Bandy!"


----------



## brihard (31 Jul 2022)

lenaitch said:


> That's actually pretty decent.  The OPP has stand-by pay but it has to be approved at a very senior level and in 31 years I honestly don't recall it being invoked - maybe once.  Our Handlers get a big honkin' SUV, a paid-for at-home kennel, food and vet bills covered, plus all the o/t they can earn.  I'm not aware of any special pay treatment.  Even in small remote detachments (admittedly, non arctic) there is no stand-by provision; the clock starts when the phone rings.
> 
> Most handlers that I know/knew were big into the outdoors, fitness and, or course, animals.  I think many would be Tactical if they weren't Handlers.


How do they ensure there will be someone available to take the call in remote detachments? If there’s no on call, are members unrestricted on their time off? I can’t imagine every location has members on shift 24/7?


----------



## RedFive (1 Aug 2022)

brihard said:


> No, he ate the resist arrest conviction. They stayed the refusal to provide a sample charge. Probably a plea deal, saves the court time and resources. Normal anywhere, basically expected in BC. Not a lot goes to trial. The system’s super overwhelmed. I’ll stand by what I said that a civilian would have similarly seen the impaired refusal dropped on a plea deal, particularly given the immediate roadside prohibition.
> 
> Re Police Dog Services- why’s it so sought after? Well, it’s pretty cool, you’re constantly catching bad guys or saving lost people, you go to all of the good calls, get to work high risk arrests and warrant executions, and if you’re not as big on the investigative side of things, it frees you from really doing any of that. You just run your tracks, and train. Plus you get cool gear, a take home vehicle, on call pay, and a Belgian Malinois. But yes, some of the dog guys are weird and I can think of one I really dislike.


The PDS fur missile that turned my right hamstring into hamburger a couple years ago was a German Shepherd, perhaps they mix bloodlines in Innisfail? Far from an expert in the PDS breeding program.

In my area dog handling is sought after for all of those reasons Brihard mentioned. You just bounce around from cool file to cool file, chase bad guys, find lost kids, damn near everybody loves dogs even if they don't like the Police. No dumb calls, very little grief from the public, no investigating at all, a take home unmarked Chevrolet Tahoe, a partner that you will work with for 6-8 years depending then get to keep as a pet, unlimited OT, you name it.

He really screwed himself, because when it says "worked for the PDS program for ten years in addition to his regular duties without pay" they're referring to the program where PDS prospect members spend usually around 10 years raising possible PDS pups. They do it without pay, and the time they spend to train these pups is substantial. If they don't turn out pups that do well when sent back to Innisfail to be paired with the next class of possible handlers, they'll never get the call to get a shot at handling. Completing the handling course is also exceptionally difficult. Lots of members try and fail to achieve one of the coveted spots.

I don't know him personally, but damn near everybody in the Lower Mainland heard about this file. I'm surprised he wasn't fired.


----------



## brihard (1 Aug 2022)

RedFive said:


> The PDS fur missile that turned my right hamstring into hamburger a couple years ago was a German Shepherd, perhaps they mix bloodlines in Innisfail? Far from an expert in the PDS breeding program.


I’m no expert either; I thought they use Malligators?


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Aug 2022)

brihard said:


> I’m no expert either; I thought they use Malligators?


When I was a kid we had a Mountie dog as a pet. The handler decided he wasn't cut out for the dog handler life so we got him.

Very protective. Big and a real smart dog. He died not longer after I joined the CAF. I miss him.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (1 Aug 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> When I was a kid we had a Mountie dog as a pet. The handler decided he wasn't cut out for the dog handler life so we got him.
> 
> Very protective. Big and a real smart dog. He died not longer after I joined the CAF. I miss him.


I have 2 Shepherds myself. They're docile, dopey things when they are playing with my kids or out for walks. 

That said, God help anything that comes into our house or yard uninvited. I have seen the two of them rip a rabbit to shreds and the bigger one brought me most of a Coy wolf's tail, after it made a grave error in scent matching.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Aug 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I have 2 Shepherds myself. They're docile, dopey things when they are playing with my kids or out for walks.
> 
> That said, God help anything that comes into our house or yard uninvited. I have seen the two of them rip a rabbit to shreds and the bigger one brought me most of a Coy wolf's tail, after it made a grave error in scent matching.


Speaking of rabbits my grandson’s Cocker Spaniel ripped a rabbit apart. I was called to clean up the remains. Jesse the dog was so proud of herself!!! 😂❤️


----------



## lenaitch (1 Aug 2022)

brihard said:


> How do they ensure there will be someone available to take the call in remote detachments? If there’s no on call, are members unrestricted on their time off? I can’t imagine every location has members on shift 24/7?


Well, back in the before times (my era), it was something that was just worked out between the members.  There were lots of small, non-24 hour detachments, primarily in the north but not exclusively.  The going home shift (probably 2 or 3 members) would just share around who was going to take calls until about 0400, and tell the radio room.  After that, they would call somebody scheduled for day shift (they had a copy of the roster).  If, when you got home you ended up having a drink or two and they called, you simply said you couldn't go and they would call someone else.  I worked with a guy who simply never answered the phone - said he was a deep sleeper.  Every area had some variation of this.  It was imperfect and informal, but it worked and didn't cost the Force a dime.  Everybody lived in town and it was just accepted as part of the tour (and not having to work a scheduled midnight shift).  Places didn't have 24 hour coverage for a reason and call-outs weren't usually a consistent problem.  If there was enough work around the clock, there was enough staff for coverage.

In the 1990s, they started clustering a lot of smaller detachments.  Members at the various detachments are grouped under common platoons and places that never had 24-hour coverage now do.  I have heard there is only one or two detachments (which could encompass several former detachments) in the province that are not 24-hour.  The trouble was, staffing was now spread over more hours and hasn't kept up, and some smaller sites may not always have somebody on duty so the next office covers over - they're all just considered zones.  However, in the north, driving time can get significant.  If it is really urgent, the commcentre may try to get a hold of somebody local, but it's always a crap shoot.  Many younger members feel that, if they want me to be available, they can pay me for it - which they don't.  Also, many younger members don't want to live in small towns so 12 hour shifts allows them to come in from a larger centre, do their 2+2 then go home.  Some share accommodations - it's like barracks.

Keep in mind that the OPP doesn't have the far-flung, fly-in remote detachments like the RCMP.  Every detachment save one (Moosonee) is road accessible.  It might be a very long drive, but you can.


----------



## lenaitch (1 Aug 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Speaking of rabbits my grandson’s Cocker Spaniel ripped a rabbit apart. I was called to clean up the remains. Jesse the dog was so proud of herself!!! 😂❤️


Where we had our farm, we had a Bichon (daughter's dog) and a Cairn Terrier.  One day we were moving a small run-in and a chipmunk came out from under it.  The Bichon turned and nailed it then got this look on its face like 'OMG, what have I done'.  The Terrier sulked because he figured that was his job.


*****

To the best of my knowledge, the OPP uses both Belgian Malinois and Shepherds (including mixes) for general service dogs and mostly Labs for specialized search and rescue, explosives and cadaver searching.  Some handlers have more than one partner.  Shepherds can develop orthopedic issues which can cause problems in long bush tracks; something that urban police services obviously don't face.  They don't have a breeding programs but use favoured breeders.  I understand one is in the Czech Republic.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Aug 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Where we had our farm, we had a Bichon (daughter's dog) and a Cairn Terrier.  One day we were moving a small run-in and a chipmunk came out from under it.  The Bichon turned and nailed it then got this look on its face like 'OMG, what have I done'.  The Terrier sulked because he figured that was his job.


The grandkids now have a Bichon - Poodle cross named Archie who is a bit of a jerk but really cute.


----------

