IN SERVICE: 10-8 A PEER READ PUBLICATION IN SERVICE: 10-8 GOES GLOBAL “In Service: 10-8” is now in its 14th year of publication. It started in 2001 and has become a popular read among Canada’s law enforcement community, with readers in all of Canada’s provinces and territories. Many of our email subscribers share the newsletter with others in their organizations. We are also proud to say that it is read in locations that extend beyond Canada’s borders. If you would like to be a regular subscriber to this newsletter sign up at: www.10-8.ca Locations where “In Service: 10-8 “ is read. A newsletter devoted to operational police officers in Canada. Be Smart & Stay Safe Volume 14 Issue 1 Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 Highlights In This Issue Despite Charter Breach Evidence Admissible 4 Reasonable Suspicion Involves Possibilities, Not Probabilities 5 Police Beating Results In Stayed Charges 7 No Right To Lawyer Before Completing Police Notes 9 Questioning Was Investigative, Not An Opportunity To Commit Crime 12 On-Duty Deaths Rise 15 Safety Search Sanctioned 18 Sign Barring Police Did Not Create Privacy Expectation 20 Corroboration May Assist With Credibility Assessment 22 No s. 10(b) Charter Breach: Arrestee Satisfied With Duty Counsel 27 Manner Of Detention Was ‘Over-Kill’ In The Circumstances 29 Sniffer-Dog Deployment Lawful: Reasonable Suspicion Standard Met 32 Unless otherwise noted all articles are authored by Mike Novakowski, MA, LLM. The articles contained herein are provided for information purposes only and are not to be construed as legal or other professional advice. The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily the opinions of the Justice Institute of British Columbia. “In Service: 10-8” welcomes your comments or contributions to this newsletter. If you would like to be added to our electronic distribution subscribe at: www.10-8.ca Upcoming Events Human Source Management This course will equip participants with the basic skills required and the best practices to follow associated to the recruitment and handling of informants and agents. It includes preparation of judicial authorizations utilizing informant/agent information, as well as policy and how to effectively report on information delivered from these assets. June 23-26, 2014 (Victoria) September 16-19, 2014 JIBC Police Academy Advanced Training www.jibc.ca/course/POLADV715 See page 28 National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data Note-able Quote Main entry under title: In service: 10-8. -- Vol. 1, no. 1 (June 2001) Monthly Title from caption. “A newsletter devoted to operational police officers across British Columbia.” ISSN 1705-5717 = In service, 10-8 REGISTER NOW “Safety searches will typically be AGENDA warrantless, as the police will generally not have sufficient time to PROGRAM FACULTY obtain prior judicial authorization for WHO SHOULD them.” ATTEND 1. Police - British Columbia - Periodicals. 2. Police - Legal status, laws, etc. - Canada Cases - Periodicals. I. Justice Institute of British Columbia. Police Academy. II. Title: In service, 10-8. III. Title: In service, ten-eight. PAGE 2 see page 18 Graduate Certificates Search warrants are powerful tools that can make court decisions continue to make apparent the im and complete Search Warrant Applications and th drafting. PRICE Intelligence Analysis CREDITS Whether you’re a Crown Attorney, Law Enforceme the Peace, Government Regulator or Defence Law REQUEST understand the thinking behind search warrants, k or BROCHURE or attack them, and are able to avoid the many pit raise. DOWNLOAD Tactical Criminal Analysis BROCHURE PDF see page 36 This comprehensive Osgoode Professional Developm SPONSOR THIS PROGRAM www.jibc.ca especially to provide you with the knowledge and skill HOTEL & PARKING variety of search warrants with clarity and certainty, to and to identify and develop strategies for defending/a warrant in court. You’ll hear from a faculty of Canada’s top Crown and experienced police officers on: • Identifying issues • Writing to the section Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 WHATʼS NEW FOR POLICE IN THE LIBRARY The Justice Institute of British Columbia Library is an excellent resource for learning. Here is a list of its most recent acquisitions which may be of interest to police. David and Goliath: underdogs, misfits, and the art of battling giants. Malcolm Gladwell. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, c2013 BF 503 G53 2013 Demonstrating emotional intelligence. [ v i d e o r e c o r d i n g ] . p r o d u c e d & d i s t r i b u t e d by StressStop.com; written & directed by James E. Porter. Norwalk, CT: StressStop.com, c2011. 1 videodisc (18 min.): sd., col.; 4 3/4 in. (DVD). Based on the books Emotional intelligence and Social intelligence by Daniel Goleman. Special features: Q & A with Daniel Goleman; the making of EI. Teaches the viewer the subtle art of reading facial expressions, as well as the ease to which emotions are transferred from one person to another. Focuses specifically on how the emotions of sadness, happiness, surprise,disgust, fear and anger can be read and then transferred to others. BF 576 E46 2011 pt.2 D1784 Emotional intelligence & optimal performance. [ v i d e o r e c o r d i n g ] . p r o d u c e d & d i s t r i b u t e d by StressStop.com; written & directed by James E. Porter. Norwalk, CT: StressStop.com, c2011. 1 videodisc (17 min.): sd., col.; 4 3/4 in. (DVD). Based on the books Emotional intelligence and Social intelligence by Daniel Goleman. Special features: Q & A with Daniel Goleman; the making of EI; 30 minute PowerPoint Presentation (PPS); participant handout (Microsoft Word). Teaches the viewer to identify optimal amount of stress in themselves, which is one of the five key emotional intelligence skills needed to stay highly motivated and engaged. Other strategies include learning how to overcome overly negative thinking such as worry, recovering quickly from emotional episodes, and how to handle disturbing emotions in yourself, your coworkers, and your supervisors. The film presents the strategy for addressing these issues as a five-step program. Steps include promoting self-awareness, self-regulation of the nervous system, challenging overly-negative thoughts and worries, recovering quickly from emotional episodes, and responding empathically. BF 576 E46 2011 pt.3 D1785 No excuses: how you can turn any workplace into a great one. Jennifer Robin, Michael Burchell. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, c2013 HD 58.7 R625 2013 Primal leadership: unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, Annie McKee. Boston, MA: Harvard Business ReviewPress, 2013. HD 57.7 G664 2013 Understanding emotional intelligence. [videorecording] p r o d u c e d & d i s t r i b u t e d by StressStop.com; written & directed by James E. Porter. Norwalk, CT: StressStop.com, c2011. 1 videodisc (12 min.): sd., col.; 4 3/4 in. (DVD) + CD-ROM (digital; 4 3/4 in.) Accompanying CD entitled: Relax: six techniques to lower your stress. Based on the books Emotional intelligence and Social intelligence by Daniel Goleman. Special features: Q & A with Daniel Goleman; the making of EI; 30 minute PowerPoint Presentation (PPS); participant handout (Microsoft Word). Teaches the viewer three basic strategies for handling stress with emotional intelligence: Becoming aware of emotions, self-regulating emotions, and recognizing and empathizing with the emotions in others. BF 576 E46 2011 pt.1 D1783 PAGE 3 www.10-8.ca Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 DESPITE CHARTER BREACH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE BY THE BOOK: R. v. Wright, 2013 ONCA 778 During a police wiretap, officers heard communications between the accused and another man (Lewis) indicating that the accused might have a firearm in one of two cars, a Honda or a Lexus. About an hour later a detective located the two cars in the parking lot of a club. He briefed other officers in the area that there was reliable information of a firearm in one of the two vehicles. Although the detective described the vehicles including their license plate numbers, he did not pass on the names of the two suspects nor did he say the source of the information was a wiretap. The officers understood that they were to stop the two cars to try to determine if there was a firearm but had no direct order to search. The Lexus, driven by Lewis, was stopped but eventually let go. The Honda was also stopped almost immediately after the Lexus. An officer smelled liquor on the driver’s breath. He was administered a screening test, registered a “warn” and received a 12-hour license suspension. The accused, a passenger in the Honda, was identified and checked on the police database. Information suggested he was to be considered “armed and dangerous”. Since the accused also had a suspended driver’s license, the car was to be impounded. His demeanor and attitude changed once he learned the car was being towed and an officer inadvertently opened the trunk when the release button was hit while the keys were removed from the ignition. The accused became very nervous and made a point of saying the car was his girlfriend’s, he did not know what was in it and that nothing in it belonged to him. The officers decided they had reasonable and probable grounds to search the vehicle. In the trunk officers found a handgun inside a black shoulder bag wrapped in some shirts. The officers never, however, considered whether there were exigent circumstances requiring an immediate search. Weapons Search: s. 117.02 Criminal Code s. 117.02 (1) Where a peace officer believes on reasonable grounds (a) that a weapon, an imitation firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition, any prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance was used in the commission of an offence, or (b) that an offence is being committed, or has been committed, under any provision of this Act that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, an imitation firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance, and evidence of the offence is likely to be found on a person, in a vehicle or in any place or premises other than a dwelling-house, the peace officer may, where the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but, by reason of exigent circumstances, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search, without warrant, the person, vehicle, place or premises, and seize any thing by means of or in relation to which that peace officer believes on reasonable grounds the offence is being committed or has been committed. Ontario Superior Court of Justice The judge concluded, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds to search the car. These grounds included the reliable information about a gun, and the accused’s change in demeanor and attitude once the trunk was opened and the car was going to be towed. The judge found the search of the vehicle’s trunk was justified under s. 117.02 of the Criminal Code, although he did not consider whether there were exigent circumstances permitting the officers to search without a warrant. The judge “Gun violence and gun possession are matters of serious concern in our society.” PAGE 4 Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 case, the vehicle was about to be towed to the police station under the statutory authority of s. 48(11) of the Highway Traffic Act..., which permits the police to impound a vehicle where the driver fails the roadside test. ... [T]he right to impound a vehicle also includes the right to inventory its contents. This further reduces the expectation of privacy when a vehicle is driven on the roads.” Ontario Court of Appeal Th e a c c u s e d a p p e a l e d h i s convictions arguing the trial judge erred in concluding the search of the trunk was reasonable. Furthermore, if his rights were breached, he submitted that the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2). The Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to decide whether there was or was not a s. 8 Charter violation. The gun was properly admitted under s. 24 (2): 2. The impact of the breach on the accused’s expectation of privacy was relatively low in the specific circumstances of this case. “A person’s expectation of privacy in his (or his partner’s) vehicle is less than in his residence,” said the Appeal Court. “In this IMPACT SERIOUSNESS 1. The officers acted in good faith. “They did not decide to search the vehicle until they had developed the requisite reasonable and probable grounds in light of unfolding events at the scene of the vehicle stop,” said the Court of Appeal. “They knew they did not have reasonable and probable grounds when they first stopped the Honda, and were only satisfied that these grounds developed once the [accused] (a) became noticeably concerned about the police taking the car, and (b) began to dissociate himself from the car and its contents. Although the officers should have but did not advert to the existence of exigent circumstances or to officer or public safety, if that failure caused a breach of s. 8, it still places the seriousness of the Charter–infringing conduct at the lower end of the spectrum on this occasion.” 3. “Gun violence and gun possession are matters of serious concern in our society. A loaded firearm is also reliable evidence and was essential to prove the Crown’s case.” MERITS found the search was not unreasonable under s. 8 of Charter. And, even if there was a s. 8 breach, the judge would admit the gun as evidence under s. 24 (2). The accused was convicted of possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unauthorized possession of a firearm in a vehicle and careless transport of a restricted weapon. The accused’s appeal was dismissed. Complete case available at www.ontariocourts.on.ca REASONABLE SUSPICION INVOLVES POSSIBILITIES, NOT PROBABILITIES R. v. Williams, 2013 ONCA 772 At about 7:25 pm a Major Crime Unit investigator answered an anonymous telephone call. The caller said that a person was walking near a housing complex with a gun. He was described as a black man, 5’ 8”, baby faced, with his hair in dreadlocks and wearing a black t-shirt and jeans. The caller hung up when asked for their name. The housing complex was a short distance from the police station and was wellknown to officers. The area was referred to as a “stovetop” - a place where crack cocaine is often cooked on top of a stove. The police had been frequently called to this complex about ongoing problems with drugs and guns, including shootings. The information about the anonymous call was immediately passed on to other members of the Major Crime Unit. They responded to the area within minutes and noticed a group of people. One individual in the group matched the description of the man with the gun but his face was not initially visible. PAGE 5 Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 Two officers approached the accused, identified themselves as police officers and said they were investigating a weapons offence. One of the officers asked “Are you armed?” The accused did not answer the officer’s question. Instead, he “bladed” – turned to his side – in a manner the officer considered evasive. The other people who were with him did not react in the same way. One of the officers also noticed the accused make a movement towards the area of his waist. The accused was told to put his hands up and to turn around. But he did neither. Two officers took control of the accused by his arms. He resisted, causing the police to consider their safety, as well as that of the public, to be at risk. An officer lifted the accused’s baggy t-shirt and saw a gun butt protruding from the waistband of his pants. He yelled “gun, gun, gun”. The accused was subdued, handcuffed, and placed under arrest. The handgun was a fully loaded .45 calibre semiautomatic. He was arrested and a search incident to his arrest resulted in the recovery of a small amount of marihuana. Ontario Superior Court of Justice officer or public safety. Finally, even if there were Charter breaches, the judge would have admitted the gun and marihuana under s. 24 (2). The accused was convicted of several offences related to the possession of the handgun and the marihuana. Ontario Court of Appeal The accused reargued that he had been arbitrarily detained when approached by police. In his view, the tip did not amount to a reasonable suspicion nor did the subsequent events that followed since his responses were ambiguous and consistent with exercising his right to silence. Plus, he submitted that he was not merely detained for investigation but subjected to a de facto arrest without the necessary reasonably grounded belief that he committed an offence. Furthermore, the accused contended the search in this case exceeded a pat-down search and was more akin to a strip search. The search, he suggested, was therefore unreasonable and a s. 8 breach. Investigative Detention The accused argued that he was arbitrarily detained under s. 9 of the Charter because neither the anonymous tip nor anything that occurred during the police encounter amounted to the reasonable suspicion required to justify an investigative detention. The judge agreed, in part, finding that the information provided in the anonymous tip could n o t , o n i t s ow n , j u s t i f y a n i nve s t i g a t ive detention. However, the tip along with what occurred as the officers spoke to the accused was sufficient to provide a reasonable suspicion that he committed an offence. Thus, the investigative detention that followed was justified. Then, once the gun was seen, the officers had reasonable grounds to make the arrest. As for the search, it was not unreasonable under s. 8 of the Charter. Although lifting the t-shirt was not a pat-down, it was less invasive than one and conducted out of concern for The Court of Appeal first explained the police authority of investigative detention: Police may detain a person for investigative purposes if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is connected to particular criminal activity and that such a detention is reasonably necessary in the circumstances. The standard – “reasonable grounds to suspect” – involves possibilities, not probabilities. We must take care not to conflate the test for reasonable suspicion with the more exacting standard of reasonable belief. A reasonable suspicion entails more than a sincerely held subjective belief, for that is mere suspicion. A reasonable suspicion is a suspicion grounded in “objectively discernible facts, which could then be subjected to independent judicial scrutiny”. “A reasonable suspicion entails more than a sincerely held subjective belief, for that is mere suspicion. A reasonable suspicion is a suspicion grounded in ‘objectively discernible facts, which could then be subjected to independent judicial scrutiny’.” PAGE 6 Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 To determine whether the reasonable suspicion standard has been met, a reviewing court must examine the totality of the relevant circumstances. This examination is not some scientific or metaphysical exercise. Common sense, flexibility, and practical everyday experience are to be applied through the eyes of a reasonable person equipped with the knowledge, training, and experience of the investigating officer. The standard of reasonable suspicion is not frustrated simply because the factors urged in support may also give rise to an innocent explanation. In the end, if the facts objectively indicate the possibility of criminal behaviour in light of the totality of the circumstances, the objective component of the reasonable suspicion standard has been satisfied. Search During an investigative detention, the police may sometimes conduct a pat-down search of the detainee. However, in this case, the police lifted the accused’s baggy t-shirt. Although, strictly speaking, this was not a pat-down search, it was arguably less intrusive than one. “To characterize what occurred here as unreasonable is to sacrifice substance for form,” said the Appeal Court. “In no sense could this search be characterized as the functional equivalent of a strip search.” Admissibility of Evidence Since the accused had failed to demonstrate that the evidence – the gun and marihuana – was obtained in a manner that breached his rights under either ss. 8 or 9 of the Charter, s. 24(2) did not apply. In any event, the trial judge properly applied s. 24(2) if she was wrong in finding no Charter infringements. Any elements or factors considered as part of a “reasonable suspicion” analysis must respect Charter principles. Nor should the exercise of Charter rights, such as the right to remain silent or to walk away from questioning made outside the context of a detention, provide grounds for reasonable suspicion. Yet some factors, including flight from the police, may give rise to reasonable suspicion on their own. Even if a factor cannot on its own support reasonable suspicion, reasonable suspicion may be established when the same factor is simply one of a constellation of factors. The actions of a person after an initial encounter with the police are part of the circumstances to be considered in deciding whether the reasonable suspicion threshold has been crossed. [references omitted, paras. 22-25] The accused’s appeal was dismissed. Complete case available at www.ontariocourts.on.ca POLICE BEATING RESULTS IN STAYED CHARGES R. v. Singh, 2013 ONCA 750 In this case, the tip was an important part of the reasonable suspicion analysis. “The tip was current, described the nature of the offence being committed, and contained sufficient particulars of the suspect to enable police to immediately focus on the [accused] when they arrived minutes later,” said the Court of Appeal. “In our view, the combination of the anonymous tip and what occurred when the [accused] encountered the police was capable of supporting a reasonable belief that the [accused] might be connected to a gun crime as reported by the anonymous caller. Nothing more was required.” The accused was arrested for robbery at his workplace several months after a copper wire heist. Another man was also arrested. An employee had been bound with zip ties and duct tape, and was threatened with a handgun. Copper piping worth $350,000 was loaded into a vehicle with a forklift. After the robbers left the employee freed himself and called 911. The accused was taken to the police station where he said he had been beaten by police on three separate occasions over an extended period of time before giving a statement. First, he was placed in an interrogation room, strip searched and left alone. About 15 minutes later the officers returned and began questioning him but he denied any involvement, including knowing his coaccused (which was not true). An officer responded PAGE 7 Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 violently to these denials, attacking the accused for up to two minutes. While pinned against the wall, the accused was struck on the back and kneed in the ribs. The officers left, but sometime later returned and again responded with force after the accused said he knew nothing about the robbery. His neck was grabbed, throat squeezed, head slammed against the wall and he was punched. Police demanded that he tell them what happened in the robbery. A detective said, “Tell them something, tell them anything or else they’re going to come back.” Receiving no response, the detective left. On the third occasion the officers opened the door with the accused’s co-arrestee between them. The door then closed and he was left alone again. Later, the officers returned to the interrogation room. After denying he was lying about the robbery, he was again beaten. He was hit on the back of the head many times and begged the officers to just kill him. The officers then left the room, while one returned alone an hour later saying, “I am sorry for what I did to you. It’s part of my job.” After the apology, the accused was given food, water and a towel to clean himself up. He continued to deny having anything to do with the robbery during a video statement. Ten days later, after his release, he visited his family doctor. Ontario Superior Court The accused’s co-accused was also beaten and the Crown voluntarily sought a stay of proceedings on his charges. He required medical attention and X-rays subsequently revealed that he had a fractured rib. As for the accused’s charges, they proceeded and he was convicted of armed robbery and forcible confinement. The Crown did not contest the beating allegations, calling no evidence to refute them. The judge recognized the egregious nature of the police misconduct and described it as “thoroughly reprehensible behavior on the part of those acting on behalf of the state.” However, she concluded the beatings did not warrant a stay under s. 24(1) of the Charter in the circumstances. The police brutality had not affected trial fairness, the injuries did not result in serious harm and the charges were very serious. She also concluded that there were very few cases in Canadian jurisprudence where a stay had been imposed solely as a remedy for police brutality. The judge did, however, reduce the accused’s sentence by one year in consideration of the police misconduct. He was sentenced to 5 ½ years. Ontario Court of Appeal The accused argued that the police misconduct was so egregious that a stay of conviction was warranted. The Court of Appeal agreed. “Canadian society cannot tolerate – and the courts cannot permit – police officers to beat suspects in order to obtain confessions,” said Justice Blair. “Yet, sadly, that is precisely what happened in this case. One of the two police officers who participated in the beatings apparently thought, as he said, that ‘it’s part of [his] job’ to do so. It is not.” In a footnote to its ruling, the Court of Appeal stated “the conduct in this case might well be characterized as ‘torture’ as that term is defined in s. 269.1(2) of the Criminal Code.” Stay Although a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) is usually rare when trial fairness is not an issue, this was one such case were a stay was warranted under the residual category. The residual category permits judicial discretion in granting a stay, even where trial fairness is not at issue, if (1) ”the prejudice caused by the abuse in question will be manifested, perpetuated or aggravated through the conduct of the trial, or by its outcome” and (2) “no other remedy is reasonably capable of removing that prejudice.” In this case, the trial judge failed to “direct her mind to the nature of the police misconduct in the context of its potential systemic ramifications and the need to consider its impact upon the integrity of the judicial process”: PAGE 8 The serious nature of the charges in question, the absence of trial fairness issues, and the nature of the injuries inflicted are all important factors in the balancing exercise that leads to the grant or refusal of a stay of proceedings. None is controlling, however, where – as here – the conduct involved goes to the heart of the integrity of the justice system. … Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 “Canadian society cannot tolerate – and the courts cannot permit – police officers to beat suspects in order to obtain confessions. Yet, sadly, that is precisely what happened in this case. One of the two police officers who participated in the beatings apparently thought, as he said, that ‘it’s part of [his] job’ to do so. It is not.” What occurred here was not a momentary overreaction by a police officer caught up in the moment of a difficult interrogation. What occurred here was the administration of a calculated, prolonged and skillfully ch o r e o g ra p h e d i nve s t i g a t ive t e ch n i q u e developed by these officers to secure evidence. This technique involved the deliberate and repeated use of intimidation, threats and violence, coupled with what can only be described as a systematic breach of the constitutional rights of detained persons – including the denial of their rights to counsel. It would be naïve to suppose that this type of egregious conduct, on the part of these officers, would be confined to an isolated incident. committed against the [accused’s] co-accused reinforces this concern. [A] stay of the convictions is necessary “to prevent the perpetuation of a wrong that, if left alone, will continue to trouble the parties and the community as a whole in the future.” [para. 48-49] The accused’s appeal was allowed and a stay of convictions was entered. Complete case available at www.ontariocourts.on.ca NO RIGHT TO LAWYER BEFORE COMPLETING POLICE NOTES Wood v. Schaeffer, 2013 SCC 71 The courts must not condone such an approach to interrogation. Real life in the police services is not a television drama. What took place here sullies the reputations of the many good officers in our country, whose work is integral to the safety and security of our society. [42-44] In addition, the police refused to respond to the allegations. An internal investigation was stopped when the victims were unwilling to cooperate. Further, no charges, disciplinary measures or other consequences flowing from the investigation were reported to the court. In granting the stay, Justice Blair stated: Balancing all of the competing interests at play in contemplating a stay of proceedings – the seriousness of the offence and society’s interest in upholding a conviction, the integrity of the justice system, and the nature and gravity of the violation of the [accused’s] rights – I am satisfied that a stay is warranted and should have been imposed. The state misconduct was a flagrant breach of the [accused’s] Charter-protected rights. The prolonged and grave nature of the beatings, and the careful choreography underlying them, suggest a pattern of misconduct on the part of [the officers] that has systemic implications. That similar assaults were Two men were shot and killed by police in separate incidents. In both cases the men failed to comply with police commands to drop their knives and they were shot after they advanced on police. During the subsequent investigations into the shootings by Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) - the investigating body of fatal police shootings - the involved officers were instructed by senior officers not to write any notes until they had spoken to a lawyer. Under a provincial regulation, both subject and witness officers are required to complete their notes on an incident in accordance with their duty. The regulation, however, also provides all officers with an entitlement to consult legal counsel and to have counsel present during their SIU interviews. In both cases, charges were not brought against the officers by the SIU. Ontario Superior Court of Justice The families of the two deceased brought an action seeking judicial interpretation of Ontario’s Police Services Act and its regulations governing the conduct of SIU PAGE 9 Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 BY THE BOOK: Ontarioʼs Police Services Act: Conduct and Duties of Police Officers Respecting Investigations by the Special Investigations Unit s. 7 (1) Subject to subsection (2), every police officer is entitled to consult with legal counsel or a representative of a police association and to have legal counsel or a representative of a police association present during his or her interview with the SIU. ... ... ... s. 9 (1) A witness officer shall complete in full the notes on the incident in accordance with his or her duty and ... shall provide the notes to the chief of police within 24 hours after a request for the notes is made by the SIU. ... ... ... (3) A subject officer shall complete in full the notes on the incident in accordance with his or her duty, but no member of the police force shall provide copies of the notes at the request of the SIU. investigations, including whether the legislative scheme permits officers to consult with counsel before completing their notes. The judge allowed a motion brought by the officers to strike the application on procedural grounds and, therefore, the issue was not litigated. Ontario Court of Appeal The families challenged the Superior Court’s ruling. The Court of Appeal concluded that the regulations did not permit police officers to speak with a lawyer for the purpose of assisting them in completing their notes. In its view, the assistance of a lawyer in preparing notes would be inconsistent with the purpose of a police officer’s notes and their duty to prepare them. Any legal advice would be geared towards the officer’s own self-interest or the interests of their colleagues rather than the public’s interest. However, the Court of Appeal did find officers were entitled to basic legal advice before completing their notes regarding the nature of their rights and obligations in connection with the SIU investigations. Supreme Court of Canada The officers then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada contending that their entitlement to counsel was not limited to mere basic legal advice. The SIU Director also appealed, suggesting officers were not even entitled to basic legal advice before completing their notes. The families and the OPP Commissioner, on the other hand, felt the Ontario Court of Appeal got it right. The question for the Supreme Court was whether the regulation entitled officers involved in SIU investigations to speak with a lawyer before completing their notes and the scope, if any, of such an entitlement. Majority A six member majority made clear that this case addressed the scope of an officer’s entitlement to counsel flowing from a regulatory provision. Unlike ordinary citizens who, at common law, generally may consult with counsel as and when they see fit, the police officers were not acting in their capacity as ordinary citizens but in their professional capacity as police officers. “So long as police officers choose to wear the badge, they must comply with their duties and responsibilities under the regulation, even if this means at times having to forego liberties they would otherwise enjoy as ordinary citizens,” said Justice Moldaver. The regulation governs situations where officers have been involved in an incident resulting in serious injury or death and comprehensively sets out their rights and duties, including their entitlement to counsel. Note-making The majority concluded that the regulations did not entitle officers to consult with counsel before they had completed their notes - either to get assistance in preparing them or to obtain “basic legal advice.” The argument that the regulations did provide a freestanding entitlement to consult counsel at the note-making stage was rejected because it was PAGE 10 Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 “So long as police officers choose to wear the badge, they must comply with their duties and responsibilities under the regulation, even if this means at times having to forego liberties they would otherwise enjoy as ordinary citizens.” 3. Duty to Make Notes. Allowing an officer to talk to a lawyer and obtain legal advice before preparing their notes conflicts with a police officer’s duty to prepare accurate, detailed and comprehensive notes as soon as practicable 1. Legislative Purpose. The civilian SIU and the after an incident. In the Court’s view, purpose of the legislative scheme was created expanding the right of consultation to the noteto address the public’s confidence in police making stage would create the real risk that an investigations into fatal police shootings. officer’s notes will shift - either “The purpose of Having the police investigate themselves overtly or subtly - away from their bore the appearance that investigations notes is not to public duty to make accurate, were not impartial and police were detailed notes about what explain or justify protecting their own. Allowing officers happened and move toward their the facts, but to consult a lawyer at the note-making private interest in justifying or stage would add to this appearance. “A simply to set them explaining why it happened. “The reasonable member of the public would purpose of notes is not to explain or out. An officer’s naturally question whether counsel’s justify the facts, but simply to set notes are not assistance at the note-making stage is them out,” said Justice Moldaver. sought by officers to help them fulfill meant to provide a “An officer’s notes are not meant to their duties as police officers, or if it is p r ov i d e a ‘ l aw ye r- e n h a n c e d ’ instead sought, in their self-interest, to ‘lawyer-enhanced’ justification for what has occurred. protect themselves and their colleagues justification for They are simply meant to record an from the potential liability of an adverse event, so that others — like the SIU what has S I U i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,” s a i d Ju s t i c e Director — can rely on them to occurred.” Moldaver. “Public trust in the police is, determine what happened.” and always must be, of paramount concern. This concern requires that officers The Supreme Court recognized that police officers prepare their notes without the assistance of involved in a traumatic event may need to speak to counsel. Consultations with counsel during the someone before completing their notes. The note-making stage are antithetical to the very regulation, however, prevents officers from speaking purpose of the legislative scheme.” to counsel, not doctors, mental health professionals or uninvolved senior police officers before writing 2. Legislative Intent. The legislative history of the up their notes. And, of course, once officers have regulation demonstrated that the provisions completed their notes and filed them with their were never meant to provide an entitlement to chief, they are free to talk to a lawyer. consult counsel at the note-making stage. The recommendations that led to the legislation In conclusion, the majority found that police officers never mentioned the role of counsel at the are not permitted to have the assistance of counsel n o t e - m a k i n g s t a g e . Th e g ove r n m e n t ’s in the preparation of their notes nor are they entitled knowledge that there was a practice of officers to receive basic legal advice as to the nature of their consulting counsel prior to preparing notes and rights and duties prior to completing their notes. As not amending the regulation to forbid the a result, the SIU Director’s appeal was allowed practice did not change the legislature’s intent. while the officers’ appeal was dismissed. inconsistent with (1) the dominant purpose of the legislative scheme, (2) the legislative intent behind the regulation and (3) an officer’s duty to make notes. PAGE 11 Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 A Different View TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Three justices agreed that it was inconsistent with an officer’s duty to complete independent, timely and comprehensive notes if they sought legal advice which would influence the contents of those notes. “Police officers should not be allowed to consult about the drafting of the notes themselves where such consultation affects the independence of notes,” said the minority. “The contents and drafting of the notes should not be discussed with counsel. The drafting should not be directed or reviewed by counsel. The notes must remain the result of a police officer’s independent account of the events.” However, the minority opined that access to a lawyer should not be limited altogether. Rather, in its view, police officers should be allowed to talk to counsel to obtain basic legal advice, not about the content of notes, but about the steps and procedures of an SIU investigation. The minority would have upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision and dismissed all appeals. Here is the exchange when the accused called the officer back: Officer: Hello? Accused: You called me and left a message. Officer: Yeah, what’s going on? Accused: Who’s this? Officer: [gives his undercover name]. Accused: Okay, how’d you get my number? Officer: I was at Jane and Finch and a kid said that if I want anything to call this number and this guy would link me up ... I need product [meaning I’m looking to buy drugs.] Accused: Okay, so what are you looking for? What do you need? Officer: I need a half [meaning one half of an eight-ball of crack cocaine.] Accused: Okay, the small thing, that’s it? Officer: Yeah, hard, white [meaning crack cocaine] ... where are you? Accused: I’m at Weston Road. Meet me at Scarletwood. Officer: I’ll call you back at 7:30. How much? Accused: A bill [meaning $100.] Complete case available at www.scc-csc.gc.ca Officer: What’s your name? QUESTIONING WAS INVESTIGATIVE, NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT CRIME Accused: Blacus. Ontario Superior Court of Justice R. v. Ralph, 2014 ONCA 3 The police received a tip about a person using a particular telephone number to sell drugs. An undercover officer called the number and left a message for the person to call him back. Forty-one minutes later a male called back and had a conversation with the officer (see text box). As a result of the conversation, the undercover officer met with the accused later that night and purchased 1.6 grams of cocaine. The officer then met with the accused on several more occasions, purchasing increasingly larger amounts of crack and powder cocaine. The accused also offered to sell a firearm to the officer. When the accused was arrested the police seized a quantity of cocaine. The accused was convicted on multiple charges of trafficking in cocaine, possession of the proceeds of crime, possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and offering to transfer a firearm. However, he argued that the charges should have been stayed because he was entrapped. But the judge disagreed, finding there was no entrapment. In the judge’s view, the anonymous telephone tip by itself was not enough to generate a reasonable suspicion the accused was a drug trafficker. The police, however, were nonetheless permitted to pursue the tip by calling the number to investigate and confirm information as long as they did not offer an opportunity to commit a crime until they had a reasonable suspicion. In this case, the officer’s comment - “I need product” - did not amount to providing the target with an opportunity to commit the crime of trafficking. Rather it was investigative in PAGE 12 Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 nature. The opportunity to commit a crime occurred later when specific drugs were solicited and an order for drugs was placed (ie. when the officer said he needed “a half-ball”). The accused failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the police did not have a reasonable suspicion that he was a drug dealer when the opportunity to commit the crime was offered. He was sentenced to three years in prison. Ontario Court of Appeal The accused argued, among other things, that the trial judge erred in finding that he was not entrapped. He submitted that the police did not have a reasonable suspicion before giving him an opportunity to commit an offence and therefore he was subject to random virtue testing. In his view, the opportunity to commit an offence occurred when the officer said: “I was at Jane and Finch and a kid said that if I want anything to call this number and this guy would link me up ... I need product.” At this point, he contended the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in drug trafficking. Justice Rosenberg, writing the Court of Appeal’s opinion, agreed with the trial judge. The officer’s statement, “I was at Jane and Finch and a kid said that if I want anything to call this number and this guy would link me up ... I need product,” was part of the investigation rather than an opportunity to commit a crime. “[I]t was a legitimate investigative step,” said Justice Rosenberg. “When the [accused] responded as he did, this response together with the anonymous tip was ... sufficient to provide the officer with reasonable suspicion and justify the further statements from the officer. This was not a case of random virtue testing and entrapment was not made out.” The accused’s appeal was dismissed. Complete case available at www.ontariocourts.on.ca Note-able Quote WAITING FOR UNLAWFUL TOW: SAMPLES NOT TAKEN AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE R. v. Wetzel, 2013 SKCA 143 After receiving a tip about the manner in which a van with a trailer was being driven, the police pulled it over. The accused stopped the vehicle “partially” in a bus stop. A breath sample was demanded at 11:55 pm and the officers waited 35 minutes with the accused for a tow truck to arrive. After the tow truck arrived the officers waited an additional 12 minutes while the van was hauled away. The accused was taken to the police station where breath samples were obtained at 1:25 am (140mg%) and 1:50 am (130mg%). He was charged with driving while over 80 mg%. Saskatchewan Provincial Court Among other things, the trial judge found the first breath sample was not taken “as soon as practicable” under the Criminal Code. Although the police offered several reasons why the vehicle was towed, the judge found the true reason was because it was the officer’s practice to do so whenever he arrested a possible impaired driver. In other words, the 35 minute delay resulted from the officer’s general policy to always call a tow truck when dealing with impaired drivers regardless of the circumstances. “I can think of no rationale for a blanket policy of that nature; indeed, none was offered,” said the judge. “Whether or not this is simply [the officer’s] own way of punishing drivers he considers to be impaired, it is not appropriate, nor is it lawful.” Since the tow was unlawful, it was not reasonable to wait 35 minutes for the tow truck to arrive. Therefore, the breath tests were not taken as soon as practicable. The Criminal Code presumption of identity under s. 258(1)(c)(ii) could not be relied upon and the accused was acquitted. “If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right.” - Henry Ford PAGE 13 Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench The Crown appealed the acquittal arguing, among several grounds, that the trial judge erred in holding that the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable. The appeal judge agreed, finding the trial judge made a legal mistake in concluding that towing the accused’s vehicle from the bus stop was not lawful. The trial judge did not consider that the vehicle was parked “partially” in a bus stop and therefore constituted a hazard within the meaning of s. 280(1)(a)(ii) of Saskatchewan's Traffic Safety Act (TSA). A conviction was entered and the matter remitted to the trial judge for sentencing. BY THE BOOK: Saskatchewanʼs Traffic Safety Act: s. 280 s. 280 (1) A peace officer, without warrant, may: (a) seize any vehicle or combination of vehicles that the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe: (i) is being driven in contravention of this Act or the regulations; or (ii) is parked on a highway at a place, or in a manner, that constitutes a hazard to other users of the highway; and Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (b) retain the vehicle in the peace officer's possession or A further appeal, this time by the accused, was successful. A majority of the Court of Appeal found it was open to the trial judge to conclude from the officer’s evidence that the tow truck was called because he had a general policy to do so with impaired drivers. The appeal judge erred in ruling that the tow truck was called because the van and trailer were parked in a bus stop. The Crown also asserted that even if a blanket policy of always calling a tow truck was the reason to do so, calling a tow truck could still be legal under the TSA. But this position was rejected. Justice Jackson stated: Section 280(1)(a)(ii) of The Traffic Safety Act permits a peace officer, without warrant, to seize any vehicle or combination of vehicles “that the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe” constitutes a hazard. Since the trial judge rejected [the officer’s] evidence that he called the tow truck because it was in the bus stop, and I have concluded that his finding in that regard is supported by the evidence, no foundation existed for the summary conviction appeal court judge to conclude that [the officer] had reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicles constituted a hazard under s. 280(1)(a) (ii) of The Traffic Safety Act. Since the officer did not have the necessary grounds, a court could not fill the gap. store the vehicle or combination of vehicles in a suitable place. A Different View Justice Ottenbriet disagreed with the majority on this point. In his view, three explanations for why the van and trailer had been towed were provided by the officer including the fact they were in a bus stop. Since the trial judge did not explore whether the presence of the vehicles in the bus stop constituted a hazard within the meaning of s. 280(1) and therefore provided a lawful basis for the tow, he did not properly consider whether the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable. But the appeal judge did, finding there was a lawful basis for the tow and rightly concluded that the delay did not, for that reason, result in the accused’s breath samples not being taken as soon as practicable. “In this case, there was a reasonable explanation for the delay based on a lawful seizure of the vehicles,” said Justice Ottenbreit. “The delay of 35 minutes was not unreasonable in itself. The tests were taken within a reasonably prompt time under the circumstances.” The accused’s conviction appeal was allowed and his acquittal restored. Complete case available at www.canlii.org PAGE 14 !"#$%&'!(%)*+,A PEER READ PUBLICATION !"#$%&'(%()&*+ ,-.'*/01234'05637'849':4;<=2>;<41'07%7'?@#'.AB !"#$%&'!(%)*+,- Volume 14 Issue 1 - January/February 2014 A PEER READ PUBLICATION ('>49;54<<41'346C<43'E5'DC52/4'CFF2/41;'E/1C;;'012<2;G'%C5H=I2E7 2013 ROLL OF HONOUR !""%$ !""% $8'*&*"O$(# * !"#$%&'()*9&(),3)*:31#&+*&)(%('&%$#"! * !"#$%&'()*9&(),3)*:31#&- ./# 01234#peace 56# 5++7# 85,9:12,;<=# 56# BA.'#@?'7%./# 70'14<01234# ;>2=<;4:'9 48'75++7# 3650'432185,9:12,;<=# 0/*'.-, On-duty officer deaths in# # # A:3:I@:2#*86#5++U # A:3:I@:2#*86#5++U (;/>?1@<:# A1/B:<# C:>>B:2# ;D# ?4:# E1F1<# # # E1F1<#G;?1@<:# A1/B:<# C:>>B:2# ;D# ?4:# E1F1<# G;# D1?1<<9# >4;?# # E1F1<#G;?#B/#M2;>>12=6#NK:@:3O# G;# D1?1<<9# >4;?# Newfoundland & Labrador Fish and # # 01234#W6#5++U 2012. In 2013 six peace officers lost* PB># H12?/:2# (;/>?1@<:# $?:H41/:# * =K2B/L#1#=2KL#@K>?#B/#M2;>>12=6#NK:@:3O# NO!"#$%&'()*7#%6"#;*:",0"# ITAQ;2@:>#J1>#J;K/=:=#B/#?4:#12IO CILBUWildlife Enforcement Division, NL P DAER REEP A # # &(0G#Z<@:2?1 their lives on the job as reported by# # 01234#W6#5++U PB># H12?/:2# (;/>?1@<:# $?:H41/:# * * !"#$%&'()*<3"#30)*5"6#$%"# (;/>?1@<:>#C:>>B:2#1/=#Q;2@:>#41=# # # &(0G#Z<@:2?1 the Officer Down Memorial Page. 7 E 2 I = H 5 C % ' G ; 2 < 2 1 0 ' ; ; C 1 / E ' ; 4/1# 2F<12L:# FC'4/>BIK# 2End of Watch: February 21, 2013 5CD'5E>C2'(01234#W6#5++U Q;2@:>#J1>#J;K/=:=#B/#?4:#12IO @::/# H12?#1;D# # # &(0G#Z<@:2?1 -,+*)%(!'&%$#"! # # # # * * ;/# 1# =2KL,=:1# "! /:?J;2R# JB?4# >:1234# ;K?# #($O"** &*'8 (;/>?1@<:>#C:>>B:2#1/=#Q;2@:>#41=# !"#$%&'(%()&*+ # # 01234#W6#5++U Once again motor vehicles, not guns, posed the# - :*)3,)#(&9D;2#:BL4?#<;31?B;/>6#>BS#B/#E1F1<#1/=# *)('&%$#"!01234#W6#5++U * ,-.'*/01234'05637'849':4;<=2>;<41'07%7'?@#'.AB #=<;,21:9,58 #7++5 #65 ##43210 # #/. &(0G#Z<@:2?1 @::/# H12?# ;D# 1# <12L:# >BIK# *#?J;#B/#M2;>>12=O 2:@I:3:A # # ##:3B<;G#<1F1E&(0G#Z<@:2?1 greatest risk to officers and continue to do so as the?#/:IU?+21+H5:#6A8Constable Steve Dery #<1F1E #:4? #D; #2:B>>:C #<:B/1A #:<@1?>/;( # # * !"#$%&'()*=)%),*>-63)4&## 3213R=;J/# ;/# 1# =2KL,=:1?1@<:# C:>>B:2# 41=# @::/# #?;4> #9<<1?1D #>1J #?/:I?21H:A #:3B<;G # # 01234#W6#5++U last/:?J;2R# 10 years suggest. Since 2004, 24 officers have#*"0,":*;#"6%Kativik Regional Police Force, QC *)('&%$#"!!"#$%&'()*.,"-8*+;,"( * * #O3:@:KN#6=21>>;2M#/B#?>K@#LK2=#1#L/B2K= *#71>>BL/:=#?;#?4:#I;21TK1=#;/<9#;/:#J::R# JB?4# >:1234# J1221/?># ;K?# # # &(0G#Z<@:2?1 U++5@:D;2:#4B>#=:1?4O#P:#41=#@::/#1#H;/;( #2PUBLICATION :/?21H #>BP PEER lostD;2#:BL4?#<;31?B;/>6#>BS#B/#E1F1<#1/=# their lives in circumstances involving vehicles,# #2:9:12>O 1?End of Watch: March 2, 2013 @1J#>:@2;Q !""& including automobile accidents (16), vehicular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ause of Death: Gunfire +5#6W#43210 # # JBD:6# J4;# 1<>;# >:2F:># 1># 1# H;K;:/1?<#KIB> #:L#21< #1 #D;Q:@2K129#5-6#5++8 #?21H #/::@ 1?*2:@-63)4&## # # # # &(0G#Z<@:2?1 3;/>?1@<:6# 1/=# ?J;# 9;K/L# =1KL4?:2># #L/B<1:=,LK2= #1 #/; #/J;=R3123 assault (6) and being struck by a vehicle (2). These (;/>?1@<:# C:>>B:2# 41=# @::/# !""%$ !""% $8'*&*"O$(# deaths account for nearly 44% of all on-duty deaths,# (",;+*8-"#,.*)('&%$#"!01234#W6#5++U #?K; #>?/1221J #43*21:> #4?!"#$%&'()*9&(),3)*:31#&BJ #R2;J?:/ +1L:>#*+#1/=#*5O **&)(%* ('&%$#"! !""!$ !""! 1>>BL/:=#?;#?4:#I;21TK1=#;/<9#;/:#J::R# U++5#6W#43210 # 01234# # ./# 56# 5++7# 85,9:12,;<=# # = / 1 # < 1 F 1 E #/B#SB>##6>/;B?13A:3:I@:2#*86#5++U ;<#?4LB:#2;D A.'#&(0G#Z<@:2?1 @?'7%70'14<;>2=<;4:'948'73650'43210/*'.-, which is much higher than the next leading cause of# # @>B:26# ?;?1<# *W# 1?2:VB?4# (& =:1?4# # (;/>?1@<:# #A1/B:<# @:D;2:#4B>#=:1?4O#P:#41=#@::/#1#H;?1@<:# C:>>B:2#1#;D# ?4:#;D# E1F1<# O = 2 1 > > ;2M#/B#;J? ## ## E1F1<#G;#41F:#<;>?#?4:B2##?;#LK/DB2:#;F:2#?4:# G;# D1?1<<9# >4;?# gunfire *)('&%$#"! * 9:12>O (14) in the same 10 year period. On average,##&4)36->*,)%)=H1>?#*+#9:12>O#.?4:2#;DDB3:2>#RB<<:=#@9#LK/DB2:#B/3>:C 0;/?2:1<#G;/;( !"#$%&'()*7#%6"#;*:",0"# !""&$ !""&U++5#6W#43210 =K2B/L#1#=2KL#@K>?#B/#M2;>>12=6#NK:@:3O# # # ::J#:/;Guelph Police Service, ON #9#LK2=#=/ #;?#=:/LB>>1 # 1#9?B<12# ;I#:4?01234#W6#5++U 11 officers lost their lives every two years during the PB># H12?/:2# #R(;/>?1@<:# !""'$ 1?2:!""#$ @B4 #:2;D:@ NO!",?",&(*5&4)$*:&(("@&; ITAQ;2@:>#J1>#J;K/=:=#B/#?4:#12IO C#ILBUP# D A * * !""# End of Watch: March 14, 2013 (;/>?1@<:# >K2FBF:=# @9#at 4B># * * * !"#$%&'()*C)##3$*>%,"#1D/3(( # # !"#$%&'()*+&,-*."/,0&1)$ last decade, while 2005 C:>>B:2# had theB>#most deaths 11. O>21:9 * * !"#$%&'()*<3"#30)*5"6#$%"# $ & " " ! # # Q:@2K129#5-6#5++8 # # # A:3:I@:2#5*6#5++*# #(;/>?1@<:>#C:>>B:2#1/=#Q;2@:>#41=# # XK<9#*Y6#5++Y# JBD:6# J4;# 1<>;# >:2F:># 1># 1# H;R1?34:J1/ FC'4/>BIK# 25CD'5E#>>CB42<#E9@14#=D:CF'BCF234 #>3>':1C4< #:<<4 @15;?9 >/4;> ('( <12L:# Source: http://canada.odmp.org [accessed February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onstable John Zivcic * !"#$%&'()*2"'3#*!&4),"# Toronto Police Service, ON End of Watch: December 2, 2013 Cause of Death: Automobile Accident !"#$%&'()*5"6#*7%83#$"# # # !""!$ !""! * * !"#$%&'()*.)#"3%*%,"#1D/3(( # !"#$%&'!(%)*+,- # !"#$%&'()*5/,1)#*>))@&(0Constable Michael Pegg York Regional Police Service, ON End of Watch: November 29, 2013 Cause of Death: Training Accident # # “They Are Our Heroes. We Shall Not Forget Them.” 04'J=E1<'E>3'J*$3##)C*)('&%$#"! * * * # # $)1&0,/".*-,&+*)('&%$#"! #*++5#6*5✴ #2:@IQuebec :3:A # # #Y++5#6Y*#91$#G0(& # # # 0(&@))>*#)1,✴ /5*)('&Saskatchewan %$#"! # # - 1 #",)4&!*#3'"2*)('&%$#"! * * *++5#6U#43210 # # # #Y++5#6U*#91$#G0-(&1 # # & Labrador (81 (&2712+161 (5&413 (21+$"0&/ (.-", ($&%+**) ('&%$#"! 1:1.1%<4$"9;0:"9--- #"$#38%7*#6"5*)('&%$#"! Y++5#6U#910 #;B21?/.#:3BF2:$#:3B<;G#2;>=/BV 4FEJ'KEE'<1E=J'40 # # # # # # 2013 Deaths by Cause: ✴ automobile accident - 2 ✴ vehicular assault - 1 ✴ gunfire - 1 ✴ drowning - 1 !""#$ !""# accident - 1 !""'$ ✴ # training * # L* '4H* ;;$!"#$%&'()*C)##3$*>%,"#1D/3(( ','4=H5C? 4FEJ!"#$%&'()*+&,-*."/,0&1)$ 'KEE'<1E=J'40 # # # A:3:I@:2#5*6#5++*# # # XK<9#*Y6#5++Y# , NNL# '521&(0G#01/B?;@1 D(MG/1E* Last 10 years by Gender: # # # # &(0G#$1>R1?34:J1/ # # # !"#$%&'()*5/,1)#*>))@&(0 * * !"#$%&'()*2"'3#*!&4),"# female -7 # # # 01234#U6#5++* # ✴ # XK<9#*U6#5++Y# # # # &(0G#"K/1FK? # # &(0G#$1>R1?34:J1/ - 48 ✴ # male # !"#$%&'()*5"6#*7%83#$"# # # # # # # 019#U6#5++Y VB/=>;2#G;3'J