OPP takes weeks to investigate gun stolen from open trunk

News reports and online publications exclusively in reference to the Ontario Provincial Police.

OPP takes weeks to investigate gun stolen from open trunk

Postby Thomas » Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:06 pm

OPP takes weeks to investigate gun stolen from open trunk of officer's car

The Ontario Provincial Police took more than two weeks to investigate the theft of an officer’s gun from the open trunk of his unmarked police car, even after Ottawa police told them they had received a tip it had been stolen.

And when the OPP eventually found the person who had it, they violated his rights so badly a judge recently tossed all the evidence out of court.

In a court decision released last month, a judge laid out the details of the bungled investigation that led to charges being withdrawn against the father of one of four young males who took a lockbox containing an OPP-issued Sig Sauer P229 handgun, three clips of ammunition, a container of pepper spray, an asp baton, handcuffs and a police radio from the trunk of the officer’s car in Carp sometime in mid-November, 2013.

According to Ontario Superior Court Justice Pierre Roger, the Ottawa police called the OPP on Nov. 25, 2013 to tell them that police equipment had been stolen from an unmarked police vehicle, but the information was “disregarded” by the OPP for a full 17 days. It wasn’t until Dec. 12, when the OPP detective whose equipment was stolen finally reported the missing items, that the OPP assigned a team of detectives to investigate the case in a priority manner.

According to the judge, the officer didn’t seem to know when the theft occurred and could only tell his superiors that the lockbox went missing sometime after Oct. 23, 2013.

The decision did not explain why the OPP disregarded the Ottawa police tip, or why it took the officer such an extended period to report the equipment missing. The OPP declined to provide any further information to the Citizen Wednesday.

With the OPP now investigating the case, the officers learned from the Ottawa police that a young female had told them the four young males saw the unmarked police car with an open trunk parked on a residential street. When they looked in the trunk, they saw a lockbox secured by a cable. They removed the cable and stole the box, but panicked when they opened it and saw what one of the accused described as a “box full of OPP stuff” and dumped it in a river.

Police quickly identified the youths and the first was arrested on Dec. 14. He told police that not everything had been thrown in the river, and that one of the youths had kept the handgun and taken it home. According to the youth, the other boy had kept the gun, filed off the serial numbers and put it in his father’s gun safe.

Two officers then went to the residence of the young male who reportedly had the gun. There they called his father, who they asked to come out and meet them. When he did, they told the “polite and friendly” father that they believed his son was involved with the theft of police equipment. The father can’t be named since it could identify his son, who was charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Up until that point, the police didn’t believe the father was involved, the judge said. But when they asked about the theft, the father quickly blurted out that he knew where the gun was, and that he was the one who had filed off the serial number and locked it away.

The police officers quickly read the father his rights. The father then told police that the gun and ammunition were in his room and that nobody knew where it was but him. He also said he had three long guns in the home, and that five people, including his son, were still inside the house.

At this point, the two officers consulted with their staff sergeant and a decision was made that exigent circumstances existed and they couldn’t wait for a search warrant. The judge said one of the officers told the father it wasn’t a consent search; they were going to retrieve the guns “no matter what,” even though they had reasonable and probable grounds to get a search warrant.

The father’s lawyers, Alan and Shira Brass, argued the search violated the father’s Charter rights to be protected from warrantless search and seizure.

The judge agreed.

“Exigent circumstances are extraordinary powers that are to be used only when necessary,” said Roger, who later noted the gun had been in the cooperative father’s possession for close to a month without incident. “I do not accept the arguments of the Crown…that there was a need to act to protect life, prevent injury, prevent the commission of an offence or protect the evidence. The presence of a gun, in and of itself, does not necessarily pose a risk to the public or to life.”

Roger said the father’s statements to police that led to the search were also excluded, since the father would have felt he had no choice but to comply with the police. The judge found the father’s detention began as soon as he was asked to sit in the back seat of the unmarked police vehicle, and his Charter rights violated when police didn’t caution him prior to asking him questions about the theft.

The breaches were serious, Roger found, and made worse by the fact the evidence could have been collected by lawful means that didn’t involve numerous Charter breaches, including an unauthorized search of a private home.

“This is no doubt a serious breach from which this court wishes to dissociate itself,” said Roger, who excluded the evidence against the father.

The criminal charges against the father were dismissed in court last week, after the Crown prosecutor elected to call no evidence.

As for the officer whose gun was stolen, the OPP would only say the matter was resolved through internal discipline under the Police Services Act.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new ... ficers-car
Thomas, Administrator

User avatar
Thomas
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Canada

Return to News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron