Courtesy: ASIRT
SO was on duty patrolling an area of High Level when a 911 call for service was received at the location she was already at [Flamingo Inn]. The caller reported that three intoxicated males were causing problems there and were no longer welcome. SO quickly located the three males. She recognized the men. She knew them by name as she had
released all of them from police custody earlier that morning. SO was aware that the men had nowhere else to reside, and as such, given their reported actions and level of
intoxication, they were all arrestable for being intoxicated in a public place. [While not necessary, SO would also likely have had grounds to arrest them for mischief by
interfering with the lawful use and enjoyment of the Inn’s property.] As such, SO was lawfully placed and acting in the execution of her duties.
The Use of Force
Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code, police officers are permitted to use as much force as is necessary for the execution of their duties. A police officer’s use of force, in law, is not to be assessed on a standard of perfection nor using the benefit of hindsight and the opportunity to consider alternatives with the luxury of time, recognizing the exigencies of the circumstances and the decisions and reactions that must occur in split seconds. With the benefit of hindsight, time for detached reflection and knowledge of the ultimate
outcome, it is easy to speculate about how things could have been done differently. That is not the standard, however, against which an officer’s conduct is measured. The
question is, applying principles of proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness, whether the force used falls into a range of possible reasonable responses.
Proportionate Response
Proportionality requires balancing a use of force with the action to which it responds. SO, while initially alone, found herself dealing with three intoxicated males. While CW4 and
CW5 were cooperative and compliant, AP was not. SO had previous dealings with AP and had been elbowed in the mouth by him. AP was noticeably larger than SO. It is against this backdrop that the analysis of SO’s knee strikes and punches to AP’s side/back must be assessed. SO attempted to take control of AP while he was sitting on the ground.
AP refused to comply to directions given to him by SO. As previously noted, in some of the videos, SO can clearly be heard telling AP to give up his arm. AP failed to cooperate
and only then did SO resort to using physical force to try and handcuff AP. The strikes SO delivered were not to an area like AP’s head, neck or spine, which could result in
significant injury. Rather, they were directed to AP’s side/back. SO’s decision to use the force she did to try and take control of AP was proportionate, given the totality of the
circumstances then experienced by her.
Reasonably Necessary
AP was willfully resisting getting arrested/handcuffed. SO decided to use the strikes/punches to gain control of him. The use of force employed by her was reasonably necessary in attempting to gain control of AP. Again, a police officer’s use of force, in law, is not to be assessed on a standard of perfection nor using the benefit of hindsight and the opportunity to consider alternatives with the luxury of time, recognizing the exigencies of the circumstances and the decisions and reactions that must occur in split seconds.
Conclusion
Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code, a police officer, is justified in doing what he or she is authorized to do and to use as much force as is reasonably necessary where he or she has
reasonable grounds to do so. After a thorough, independent and objective investigation into the conduct of the subject officer, it is my opinion that she was lawfully placed and acting properly in the execution of her duties. There is no evidence to support any belief that she or any other officer engaged in any unlawful or unreasonable conduct that would give rise to an offence. The use of force by SO was proportionate, necessary, and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
