A case involving a Vancouver officer’s “reckless” and “unnecessary” use of a police dog during the arrest of an Indigenous youth has been highlighted by the provincial oversight body in its annual report to the legislature.
B.C.‘s Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner used the Vancouver incident – in which the youth suffered “significant bite wounds” – as a case study in a broader discussion about officer use of force and police service dogs.
Over the past five years, wounds from police dog bites have accounted for a “significant and concerning portion” of what the OPCC terms “reportable injuries,” which the report explains denotes an injury requiring treatment in hospital.
Of the 2,143 reportable injuries reviewed, one in four was caused by a police dog, the report said.
“Police dog bites can cause significant and serious injuries. Therefore, it is essential to have robust checks and balances to ensure that PSDs are used appropriately and in accordance with established standards and policies,” the report said.
“It should be noted that not every use of a PSD where a bite occurs will trigger an investigation, as police may be authorized to use PSDs in accordance with policy and standards.”
The Vancouver arrest
The investigation into the Vancouver arrest began after the OPCC received a complaint from the young person’s father, according to the report.
“Their child, who is Indigenous, was walking with a friend when a police dog bit their left leg without warning and pulled him to the ground,” the report’s summary of the complaint reads.
The police dog handler said the use of force was justified and necessary in order to arrest the youth because the young person did not comply with repeated commands to drop to the ground and “backed away,” the report said.
An initial investigation into the incident, overseen by a senior officer of the Vancouver Police Department, found that it did not “appear that the member committed misconduct.”
The police complaint commissioner, however, disagreed, and a retired judge was appointed to conduct a review.
What the review found
Judge Carol Baird Ellan’s review decision found the officer involved, whose name is redacted from the documents, committed one count of abuse of authority.
“Specifically, the member intentionally or recklessly using unnecessary force when he deployed a police service dog to arrest a person,” her decision, which is available online, said.
In coming to that conclusion, the retired judge first considered the officer’s decision to “challenge” the youth – who was suspected of mischief for breaking windows – with a police dog, and to do so alone, without any backup.
Baird Ellan found the decision to deploy the dog before other officers arrived was reckless in the circumstances.
“There is no suggestion of exigency. While the youths had arrived at the planned location, they were apparently not fleeing as they did so. There is no suggestion that the appearance of the suspects was fleeting or unexpected, or that if it was, it raised exigencies requiring the immediate deployment of the dog without waiting for other officers to attend,” the decision said.
“They had been under surveillance for almost an hour; they were neither freshly fleeing a crime, nor eluding police detection.”
The retired judge also found that the warning given to the youth before the dog was released was inadequate. However, the decision notes that even with adequate warning, the decision to deploy a police dog “where a bite may occur” must be reasonable.
In situations like the one under review, where the officer does not face any threat of death or bodily harm, a police dog can be used if a person is “fleeing” or “hiding” and “there are reasonable grounds for their immediate apprehension by a dog bite,” Baird Ellan’s review said.
In this case, a claim that the youth was fleeing “was neither objectively supported nor was it reasonable for the member to hold a belief that they were,” the review said. It also found that there were no reasonable grounds to determine that an immediate arrest was necessary and therefore using the dog was reckless.
“The lengthy surveillance suggests the suspects were not aware of the police presence or evading detection, nor actively engaged in an offence when they were challenged. They were walking when approached by the member,” the review said.
“Accordingly, while there was clear support for the suspects being arrestable, it would appear to have been for relatively less serious offences and in less than exigent circumstances.”
Baird Ellan considered and dismissed a second allegation of misconduct pertaining to how long the dog was “engaged” for, finding that the officer did have the dog “release the bite as soon as reasonably possible.”
The disciplinary measure imposed was an “advice to conduct,” which spells out the factors the officer is urged to consider when using a dog during an arrest in future.
