In McLellan, the Court held that police officers owe a duty of care to those they encounter and that whether an individual was lawfully detained or arrested bears no significance on the standard of care police officers owe. Further, the Court determined that principles related to group arrests do not apply where there is one clear suspect and an individual bystander.
This case is important as it shows that where police officers owe a duty of care, breach the standard of care, and cause injury, they may be liable for damages even where they acted lawfully in detaining or arresting an individual. Further, this case emphasizes that where police interact with suspects that are cooperative, officer presence and/or communication is the best approach.
Facts
On February 11, 2010, a phone call from Twin Rivers Educational Center (a non-traditional school for students with behavioural problems) called the RCMP to report a student who had threatened a teacher with a knife. The caller informed the RCMP that the student’s name was Kyle Browne, and that he was outside, in the school parking lot with his caseworker, Mr. McLellan (the “Plaintiff”).
Constables Elgin and Peters, along with two other police officers, approached the Plaintiff and Mr. Browne with their firearms. The Constables, in an overly aggressive manner, and in a manner inconsistent with the Police Use of Force Training in the Incident Management/Intervention Model of the RCMP (“IM/IM”), handcuffed the Plaintiff and tried to make him stand up from the ground, injuring his back and shoulders. The Plaintiff described the actions of the Constable as “planking him.” The Plaintiff described that he was laying flat on his stomach when he was handcuffed, and Constable Peters grabbed him by the handcuffs and lifted him off the ground so that only his toes were touching and was then dropped to the ground face first. The Plaintiff sought damages for injuries to his shoulder and back, as well as mental injuries suffered as a result of the actions of the two named Constables.
Decision
Police officers have a duty to the public to take reasonable efforts to protect those they come into contact with, and regardless of whether individuals are suspects or simply members of the public, a duty of care exists.
Assessing the standard of care, the Court relied on RCMP testimony, as well as the Police Use of Force Training in the IM/IM document to determine that there is a proper procedure for handcuffing an individual, and for assisting a person to their feet while they are handcuffed.
The Court held that Constable Peters’ method of handcuffing was not required or justified and breached the standard of care. Further, it was improper procedure to help a handcuffed individual to their feet by “planking” them, as Constable Elgee had done. The Court was satisfied that there was no doubt the plaintiff was injured by the actions of the Constables.
The Court then considered whether the Plaintiff had been arrested or detained. Relying on legal precedent, the Court determined the Constables had no right to detain the Plaintiff. The Constables had approached the Plaintiff and the suspect with their guns drawn when there was no apparent risk to anyone. Additionally, although the Police had every right to detain and possibly arrest the suspect, they had no right to detain or arrest the Plaintiff on the information available to them. The Court referred to Mason v. Turner, 2014 BCSC 211, which provides that a detention or arrest of a large group can be reasonable when there are reasonable grounds for arresting one individual within the group, but there is no certainty as to which individual the grounds for arrest pertain to.
However, the circumstances here were not those warranting a group arrest, because there were only two individuals involved: the suspect, and an innocent bystander. The Court concluded there was no immediate threat to the Police, and that where RCMP officers encounter a cooperative suspect, officer presence and/or communication are the suggested approaches. Ultimately, the Court held that whether or not the Plaintiff was lawfully detained or arrested bore little significance on the negligence of the Constables’ actions.
In terms of causation, the Court was satisfied that the injuries alleged were caused by the negligent acts of the two Constables. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was awarded $1,303,488.96 in damages.
Conclusion
This case illustrates that where police officers owe a duty of care, breach the standard of care, and cause injury, they may be liable for damages even where they acted lawfully in detaining or arresting an individual. Further, this case emphasizes that where police interact with suspects that are cooperative, officer presence and/or communication is the best approach.
While police may be entitled to detain or arrest individuals who are part of a large group, police must exercise greater care in identifying arrest targets when they are part of a much smaller group. Police must carefully evaluate the level of threat an individual poses, whether to police, themselves, or to others, before resorting to more assertive forms of intervention.
If your require additional information or further assistance, please contact David McKnight and Naomi Krueger.
Subscribe to RSS Feed