Are the police receiving adequate training on mental illness

On February 3, 2012, a Toronto police officer shot and killed Michael Eligon, who was believed to be mentally ill. Eligon was admitted to Toronto East General Hospital on January 31, 2012 for a mental assessment and was supposed to be picked up by his foster mother on February 3, 2012. He walked out of the hospital in his hospital gown and walked around the neighbourhood looking confused and disoriented. He also had two pairs of scissors he took from a convenience store nearby. He attempted to enter into a number of homes and a few people called the police. The police arrived and an officer shot at Eligon three times when they finally found him, with one of the shots hitting and killing Eligon. 

This was a complete shock to the neighbourhood and brought an array of questions regarding the police and the adequacy of the training they receive on dealing with people who have a mental illness. Neighbours raised their concerns since these incidents keep occurring, as exemplified by the cases of Charlie McGillivary and Sylvia Klibingaitis that happened last year.

Charles McGillivary was unable to speak due to a childhood accident and communicated through sign language with his mother and used a handful of words only she could understand. He collapsed and died while being arrested by police. They mistakenly took him for another suspect and due to his large frame and the fact that he couldn’t speak, they took him down while arresting him. McGillivary fell into medical distress and was later pronounced dead at the hospital. He was walking with his mother when this occurred and the police wouldn’t listen to her pleas that he was mentally ill and couldn’t speak.

Sylvia Klibingaitis struggled with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and psychotic delusions. She had “peak anxiety” during the weeks prior to her death, and she made a 9-1-1 call for help during a mental crisis. She told the operator that she had a knife and that she was going to commit a crime. According to the S Investigations Unit (SIU), Klibingaitis burst out the front door with a large knife in her right hand when a police officer approached her home. The officer backed away from the house toward the curb. As she followed him toward the curb with knife in hand, he pulled his gun from its holster and repeatedly yelled, “Put the knife down!” She refused and moved closer. The officer fired three times. One bullet hit the garage door and another struck her in the chest, killing her.

The SIU was contacted in both cases, and in both cases the police officers were cleared of any wrongdoing.

It seems that front-line police officers are coming into more contact with people who have mental health issues, but they receive very little mental health support and training. On the Canadian Mental Health Association website, it states that a study by the London Police Department showed that between 1998 and 2001, the number of hours uniformed police spent dealing with people with serious mental illness doubled from 5,000 to 10,000. The same study showed that calls involving people with mental illness took up to $3.7 million of the $43-million London Police Department budget in 2001. The study also showed that the increase in calls was for minor nuisance crimes or no crime at all, and that violent crime among people with serious mental illness was actually decreasing.

In a resolution passed in June 2003, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police recognized that "the inadequate funding of community mental health services has resulted in vulnerable individuals being at risk of increased contact with the police and increased involvement in the criminal justice system."

Deputy Chief Michael Federico said all Toronto officers are given mental-health training each year when they have two days of use-of-force training. It includes instruction on how to calm situations down verbally and realistic role-play scenarios that mimic responding to someone with a mental illness. Additional training varies by specific job and the year, he said. Police in Halifax and York Region have adopted an intensive 40-hour training program, developed in Memphis, Tennessee. The program takes officers to a mental-health ward and gives them extra verbal techniques.

Mr. Pritchard, a retired co-director of Christian Peacemaker Teams is calling for existing crisis teams, which pair a mental-health professional with an officer, to be available throughout the city, 24 hours a day. As of now, they are available in 10 of 17 policing divisions for 10 hours a day. In Hamilton and other jurisdictions, such teams are available at all hours.

This leaves us asking a lot of questions regarding how equipped the police are in handling situations that involve the mentally ill. An important aspect to think about is the way in which those with mental health issues are viewed by others and if they may automatically be viewed as violent by the police. It begs the question of whether this is an issue of inadequate support and training, or a bias on the part of the police when it comes to handling interactions with those who are mentally ill. Many people believe that the police are treating people with mental illness like criminals and that something needs to be done in order to prevent further needless deaths of mentally ill people at the hands of the police.

It is important to prevent the criminalization of the mentally ill, which seems to be a big issue. A report by the Canadian Mental Health Association, BC Division, estimates that the percentage of mentally disordered offenders currently in jails and prisons range from 15 to 40%. This is a serious problem that needs to be genuinely addressed by the police. What solutions do you suggest for improving the ways in which police handle situations concerning people with a mental illness? Is more training required or should police receive more educational awareness regarding mental health matters, or both? As interactions between the police and the mentally ill increases, we will see if our concerns are going to be adequately addressed or not. 

Posted by Ada Vrana (Windsor Law I)

New Leadership, New Initiatives for Windsor Police

On December 23, 2011, Windsor Police Chief Gary Smith announced his retirement from the force.  His decision to retire came amid numerous allegations of brutality and misconduct by Windsor police officers, public outcry over accountability for the actions of police officers, and heavy criticism of Smith for his handling of recent allegations of police misconduct. As of the date of Smith’s retirement, the Windsor Police Service was facing $72-million in lawsuits, with thirty cases alleging police brutality. Since 2006, mainly through out of court settlements, Windsor Police has paid over $820,000 of taxpayers’ money to victims for malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest, and assault lawsuits.  Public discontent with the actions of many officers and the Service’s handling of allegations of police misconduct has been palpable. 

Several high profile cases, including a $14.2-million lawsuit against the Windsor Police Service by Dr. Tyceer Abouhassan, have led to a shaken public confidence in the city’s police.  Dr. Abouhassan alleges he suffered a beating at the hands of Det. David Van Buskirk, and was subsequently charged with assault in what his lawyer has called a cover-up by police to protect an officer.  Det. Kent McMillan is charged with discreditable conduct for failing to conduct a fair and impartial investigation of the incident involving Dr. Abouhassan and is also charged with deceit for filing a false report in the case.  Regarding the public’s outrage at the Windsor Police Service’s recent alleged action, lawyer Andrew McKay, who currently represents Det. Van Buskirk, contends that police are merely visible targets for these allegations and that misconduct is found in every field of work. 

This view that Windsor Police are merely more exposed in the public eye than others is not widely shared. Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis has joined public discontent, and has stated that the frequency in which Windsor Police vehicles are involved in crashes has caught his attention.  In an interview with the Windsor Star, Windsor Law Professor David Tanovich stated that even judges are increasingly speaking out against police officers. 

           

Since Smith’s resignation, acting police Chief Al Frederick appears to be taking steps toward the right direction. Since his role as acting Chief, he has been outspoken over the need for change within the Windsor Police Service.  In a news conference, he bluntly stated that in terms of transparency and accountability for Windsor Police, the “status quo is not the path forward for the Windsor Police Service”.  He went on to say the Windsor Police Service will no longer “thumb its nose” at the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), amid recent accusations by Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin that the Windsor Police Service has both delayed and failed to report numerous incidents involving police misconduct.  Frederick has additionally responded to four SIU letter’s originally ignored by former Chief Gary Smith, but stated that Windsor Police Service’s failure to report certain incidents were a result of a difference in the Police Service’s definition of “serious injury” from the SIU. 

Frederick has furthermore introduced Project Accountability, a 27-measure initiative including enhanced police training, new rules regarding conflict of interests, organizational and external policy reviews conducted by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, and a more liberal definition of the term “serious harm”.  The initiative also includes plans to move the professional standards branch out of Windsor Police Headquarters.  In an interview, Frederick stated that moving the branch, which is in charge of investigating public complaints, was made in an effort to reduce the public perception of intimidation of those reporting complaints.

Frederick’s promises of change have so far appeared genuine, and as he stated, many of the 27 measures have already been implemented. It will be interesting to see whether these steps in the right direction lead to the kind of transparent and accountable police force the public desires.  But, as Professor Tanovich noted in a recent op ed in the Windsor Star, other actors in the justice system, including judges, Crown attorneys and defence lawyers, also play a crucial role in properly addressing police transparency and accountability, and should thus be considered in any plans to bring about change.

Posted by Benjamin Dillon (Windsor Law I)

Eviction aggression in the United States potential forewarning for Canadian Movements

In recent weeks it seems that members of the “Occupy” movement have overstayed their welcomes and evictions have begun to be carried out. November 15 saw police officers evicting the resisting protestors situated in Zuccotti Park in New York City. There were some reports of arrests numbering approximately 70 and others of officers tear gassing, handcuffing, and dragging people by their hair from the site. Opinions are split about the appropriateness of these actions, the scope of the right to peaceful protest, and whether or not the occupiers should have been forced out to begin with.

The more troubling news however, has come in recent days with information about violent evictions and large-scale pepper spraying incidents. For example, on November 18th police were called to the University of California’s Davis campus, making arrests and using pepper spray in the process. The spray however, was not used to control unruly participants, but was sprayed directly in the faces of 10 to 15 participants that were sitting submissively in a row on the ground. One woman was subsequently taken to the hospital to be treated for chemical burns as a result. Videos that captured the events outraged and antagonized protestors amongst the movements. One such video can be found at the following link.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/video-of-police-pepper-spraying-u-c-davis-students-provokes-outrage

This begs the question - what will happen in Canada? Occupy movements here have already experienced evictions as well. If protestors are legally evicted and refuse to leave, should police officers be allowed to take similar action to that which was taken in California?  Will protestors and police officers alike be particularly on edge because of the memories of G20? Do protestors have the right to be on the defensive and should police officers proceed with added caution?

Posted by Melissa Crowley (Windsor Law II)

Google Denies Request to Take Down Police-Brutality Video

Google has recently revealed that it has refused the request of a U.S. law enforcement agency to remove a YouTube video that contains acts of police brutality.  Although Google did not disclose information about the enforcement agency’s request to remove this video, it recently revealed in its Transparency Report how similar requests have been increasing in recent months.  

Google’s most recent TransparencyReport cited the following with respect to a petitioned video:

We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests.

In the report, Google stated that the request to remove content was one of thousands made by governments around the world, including requests from the Government of Canada.  Google stated that there have been 16 requests by the Government of Canada for the removal of content from Google services in the past year, 44% of which Google either removed fully or partially.  It additionally reported that amid increased government requests to remove content, Google continues to follow its company policy of hosting content, including videos containing police brutality, unless presented with judicial rulings for the removal of specific content.

Google’s decision not to remove content containing police brutality may be particularly relevant today, as the recent Occupy protests across North America have produced a growing number of online videos of police violence toward protestors.  A video surfaced recently that showed former Marine Scott Olsen being carried away from an OccupyOakland protest after being struck in the head by a tear gas canister, which left him in critical condition.  Footage of this incident posted on YouTube has in part led to rallying of the Occupy Wall Street for greater police accountability in dealing with the protestors.

As the Occupy movement spreads across Canada, Google’s decision to host videos of police interactions with protestors may prove instrumental in promoting police accountability and transparency during these growing protests.  It will be interesting to see whether Google will maintain their policy of hosting sensitive content as government requests for their removal continue to increase.  It will also be interesting to see whether the Canadian parliament and/or judiciary addresses this issue in the future, and whether law will be enacted to facilitate the removal of content including police brutality. 

                 

Posted by Ben Dillon (Windsor Law  I)

Windsor Mayor Concerned About Police Brutality Lawsuit and Claims of a Cover-Up

This week the Windsor Star reported that Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis has publicly expressed his concerns about the integrity and accountability of the Windsor Police Force in response to allegations that officers attempted to cover up the brutal assault of local doctor Tyceer Abouhassan. When asked about the allegations contained in a $14.2 million lawsuit filed in the Superior Court on September 29, Mayor Francis replied, “I am not happy” and “I would share the fact that I do have concerns”. Abouhassan claims that on April 22, 2010, he was minding his own business while jogging from the train station to the Jackson Park Medical Centre in Windsor when he was approached by a man that later turned out to be Det. David Van Buskirk. The officer was not dressed in uniform and at no time identified himself as a police officer.

After accusing Abouhassan of harassing a young girl in the park, Van Buskirk apparently proceeded to break Abouhassan’s nose, detach his retina and give the doctor a concussion. The Statement of Claim states that when Abouhassan regained consciousness, he overheard Van Buskirk reporting that an officer had been assaulted and requesting a prisoner transport vehicle and ambulance. Van Buskirk then searched Abouhassan’s back-pack and continued to detain the doctor before an ambulance arrived to transport him to the emergency room at Hotel Dieu Grace Hospital.

The lawsuit asserts that after Van Buskirk realized his mistake about the culprit’s identity, he knowingly provided a false occurrence report to justify the illegal assault, detention and search of Dr. Abouhassan and that other officers backed up Van Buskirk’s claim that Abouhassan attacked him first. However, video surveillance and eye-witness accounts corroborated Abouhassan’s description. Additionally, two Windsor Police Officers, Det. Sgt. Patrick Keane and Det. Sgt. Paul Bridgeman, contacted Abouhassan’s criminal lawyer on separate occasions in an attempt to broker a deal to withdraw the assault charge against Abouhassan if he did not file a formal complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) or pursue criminal charges against Van Buskirk. After Abouhassan refused the two offers to broker a deal, an Information was sworn against him by Det. Kent McMillan.

The Statement of Claim reports that Abouhassan subsequently filed complaints with the OIPRD alleging misconduct on the part of Van Buskirk, Bridgeman and Keane, and that ultimately the OIPRD made findings against Van Buskirk for discreditable conduct, excessive use of force and unlawful arrest and deceit under the Police Services Act. McMillan was found to have committed discreditable conduct and deceit, and Bridgeman discreditable conduct and neglect of duty. 

Mayor Francis, who heads the Police Services Board, indicated “many people are forming their opinions and are concerned” about what occurred. However, the Mayor could not comment more than that until the matter makes its way through the courts.

Van Buskirk was charged criminally with assault causing bodily harm and public mischief.  Meanwhile, the charges against Abouhassan were stayed by the Crown on June 15, 2010. Police Chief Gary Smith, who is also named in the lawsuit, said on Thursday that the Force “has been as open and honest as possible” since the allegations arose. While he too is concerned about the Force’s reputation in light of these events, the Chief urged the public not to lose confidence in or pass judgment on the rest of the police service “based on the actions of some”.

Posted by Jeremy Tatum (Windsor Law III)

Toronto Police Service Releases G20 Policing Review

On the first anniversary of the Toronto G-20 Summit, the Toronto Police Service released a 70-page “after-action” report into the policing of that weekend.

The report boasts of many successes, including ensuring the safety of the G20 summit delegates and security of the summit sites at all times, but also recognizes that lessons were learned about improving officer training to more efficiently respond to “widespread criminality and mass public disorder”.Chief Blair also points out that the Toronto Police Service was given only “six months to plan for the largest security event in Canadian history”, and “there were no critical injuries or deaths during the G20 Summit”. Although the report later reveals that of the 1118 people arrested, at least “five suffered injuries that they required to go to the hospital”.

The report provides an operational chronology into the related events, activities and peaceful and violent demonstrations in Toronto during June 18 – June 27 that the public may not be aware of and which explains some of the many individual arrests the police made. However, on the highly publicized mass “kettle” or sweeping arrests that have been the subject of much media attention, legal actions and Charter challenges, Chief Blair highlights the need to improve training and communication during operations so that officers can “more effectively respond to criminal activity and public disorder” at the investigative, arrest and processing stages. 

This likely comes in response to the fact that some prisoners went hours without food and water, and faced delays of up to 36 hours before being taken before a Justice of the Peace and speaking with a lawyer, which the report described as a “breakdown in communication”.  The Toronto Star reported last Friday on the story of one man that was allegedly arrested in relation to the G20 and strip-searched.

Some, including well-known criminal and constitutional lawyer Clayton Ruby, have been quick to dispel time and training as justification for being unprepared and overburdened. “They spent a billion dollars, it is not possible for them to be overwhelmed […] my daughter could do better.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), a national organization constituted to promote respect for and observance of fundamental human rights and civil liberties, describes the G20 as the dawning of a new era of policing techniques being foisted on the legal system and a “test of our accountability mechanisms, whether they work appropriately and whether they are sufficient. And they are not.” The CCLA argues that given the volume of identifiable police officers and forces involved in the G20, a single body is necessary to review their conduct and impose sanctions where appropriate. 

Chief Blair’s report indicates that “108 officers have received disciplinary action for removal of identification” and “1 officer was charged under the Criminal Code for Assault with a Weapon”. Yet, the report does not disclose the nature of the disciplinary action and internal investigations the Toronto Police Service’s Professional Standards Unit is managing or supporting.

While the report does include ten laudable recommendations for improving the Toronto Police Service’s ability to police future large-scale events, the report does not address or answer many outstanding questions that linger after the G20. Improving communication within the Force and to the public, police training and policy will certainly help, but more will be required to ensure events do not repeat themselves and those guilty of wrongdoing are held accountable.

The apparent disregard of policies governing officer identification, use of force and searches during the G20 poses serious questions about how effective policy and deployment reform will really be in ensuring that the police “respect the democratic right of individuals to demonstrate” and “freedoms of thought, belief, opinion, expression and peaceful assembly”.  For example, the report does not go on to clarify why protocol was not followed for the kettling containment technique, which requires that “persons not involved in the event must have both a route of egress from and the opportunity to leave the affected area”.

The contention that mass arrests be undertaken to disperse crowds to prevent a small number of vandals breaching the peace is unlikely to pass constitutional scrutiny. Consequently, in a report entitled Caught in the Act, which was released in December 2010, Ontario’s Ombudsman Andre Marin labeled the G20 policing as “the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history”.

However, the Ombudsman also singled out Toronto Police, and the Chief in particular, for refusing to cooperate with his investigation into the “secret” Public Works Protection Act legislation and policing surrounding the G20 Summit. Now that Chief Blair and the Toronto Police Service have pledged to “cooperate fully” with independent reviews by the Special Investigations Unit, Toronto Police Services Board, Office of the Independent Police Review Director and former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry on behalf of the Province of Ontario, it remains to be seen how that will help bring about reform in the aftermath of the G20 and lawsuits facing the Toronto Police Service.

Posted by Jeremy Tatum (Windsor Law III)

Ottawa Police Officer charged with sexual assault of Stacy Bonds

Following a lengthy investigation, the SIU has decided to lay a charge of sexual assault against Sgt. Steve Desjourdy of the Ottawa Police Service for his conduct during a unconstitutional strip search of Stacy Bonds.

For a legal argument that the facts of the case meet the Supreme Court of Canada's legal test for the actus reus of sexual assault, see David M. Tanovich, "Bonds: Gendered and Racialized Violence, Strip Searches, Sexual Assault and Abuse of Prosecutorial Power" (2011), 79 Criminal Reports (6th) 132.

CCLA Report on G-20 Public Hearings Released

Last week, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) released a joint report regarding police action during the 2010 G-20 Summit held in Toronto. The report was a result of public hearings that the CCLA and NUPGE held in Toronto and Montreal in November 2010, at which over 60 people recounted police misconduct they witnessed or experienced.

The report focuses on several aspects of the G-20 policing, including Regulation 233/10 passed under the Public Works Protection Act (PWPA) on June 2^nd, 2010. The regulation, which designated the streets and sidewalks inside the security perimeter a “public work” between June 21st and June 28^th, was passed behind closed doors and without input from any stakeholders, except the Toronto Police Service (TPS). The report criticizes the Ontario government for withholding notification of the regulation until after it had been passed and calls for the amendment or repeal of the PWPA.

The report also condemns the excessive use of arbitrary stops and searches of members of the public. Independent legal observers also recalled witnessing police searching people who clearly stated they did not consent to being searched.

Related to the numerous stops and searches, the report is particularly critical of the widespread arrests that occurred, especially those resulting from the raid on University of Toronto Graduate Student's Union building and the cornering of protestors and pedestrians at Queen and Spadina on June 27^th. The G-20 Summit resulted in over 1100 arrests, the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. The report calls the majority of the arrests excessive and unwarranted, serious violations of Charter protections. Public hearing participants also described the ridiculous nature of many arrests, including one woman being charged with burglary-related offences for carrying a piece of bamboo. Unsurprisingly, most of the arrested were not charged or had their charges dismissed.

Perhaps the most disturbing parts of the report relate to use of force and incivility towards the public. Observers reported seeing police officers charging into the crowd, grabbing, and dragging away peaceful protestors in an attempt to clear out Queens Park, the designated protest zone. In another incident, police officers arriving in unmarked vans dashed into the group of peaceful protestors gathered across the street from the Eastern Avenue Detention Centre, throwing several into the vans and speeding away. The protestors were then ordered to leave and fired upon by smoke-emitting projectiles. Personal accounts of excessive force include the experience of a man whose prosthetic leg was ripped off by police and was forcibly dragged away after explaining he couldn’t walk without it. The report also found the conditions and treatment of detainees at the detention centre to be deplorable, with overcrowded cells, lack of toilet facilities, and impaired access to legal counsel. Public hearing participants recounted particular incidents of misconduct, including the denial of insulin to a diabetic man until he collapsed and the strip searching of a minor. Particularly distressing, though not surprising, hearing participants recounted hearing racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-Francophone comments made by police to demonstrators on the streets and in the Eastern Avenue detention centre, including a threat of rape at the detention centre.

At the core of the report is the recommendation that a joint federal-provincial public inquiry be convened to investigate the conduct of police and breaches of fundamental rights that were allowed to happen. Interestingly, the report also calls for an investigation into undercover police informants and limitations on what such persons can do. This raises the question of agents provacateurs and to what extent they contributed to the unruly behavior of some protestors. It is well known that infiltrators often provoke violent behaviour during otherwise peaceful protests, allowing for law enforcement to subsequently crack down, as seen during the August 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Montebello, Quebec. The report also recommends that a legislative framework be developed to deal with future public order policing of this nature. Even with the input of the public into such a framework, it seems unlikely that it would prevent similar misconduct in the future. Such misconduct is not exceptional but occurs daily, just on a smaller scale, and won’t end until the systematic nature of such misconduct is acknowledged and police officers are held accountable under the rule of law for violating “protected” rights rather than being shielded.  

Do you think the federal and provincial governments will ever agree to a public inquiry?

Is a public inquiry needed when other inquiries have taken/are taking place, such as the Independent Civilian Review by the Toronto Police Services Board, the Systemic Review by Ontario’s Office of the Independent Police Review Director, and the review of the Public Works Protection Act by Ontario’s Ombudsman?

Given that public inquiries do not have the power to force government action but can only make findings and recommendations, do you think an inquiry would result in greater accountability?

Aminah Hanif (Law I)