We need an independent review
of the decisions and hiring practices
of B.C.’s Office of the Police
Complaint Commissioner
No one can screw up the way
Rollie Woods and Bruce M. Brown
screwed up unless it’s deliberate
and they know they can get away with it
(Here’s a note about Ian Upton and Dirk Ryneveld.)
The following letter was delivered to the office of
Bill Barisoff, Speaker of the Legislature, on Dec. 7, 2009.
(Here’s an update from Dec. 14, when Barisoff’s staff responded.)
December 4th, 2009
Bill Barisoff
Office of the Speaker
Room 207
Parliament Buildings
Victoria V8V 1X4
Dear Mr. Barisoff:
As Speaker of the Legislature, you’re the only person to whom B.C.’s Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner answers. I’m writing to request that you order an investigation into the OPCC to determine whether deputy police complaint commissioner Bruce M. Brown and senior investigative analyst Rollie Woods take part in dishonest decisions and whether OPCC hiring practices are based on cronyism.
I believe evidence shows that Brown handled my police complaint dishonestly. I believe he did that to cover up for misconduct and illegal actions by Vancouver Police. Moreover, it’s highly possible that Brown routinely handles police complaints that way.
I believe that Woods, while head of Vancouver Police Professional Standards, handled my police complaint dishonestly in order to cover up for misconduct and illegal actions by his colleagues. I think it’s likely Woods routinely conducted cover-ups on behalf of his colleagues.
Although you have no responsibility for Vancouver Police, the fact that the OPCC hired Woods does concern you. The OPCC may have hired Woods not despite of his work, but because of it. The OPCC might also have hired Woods because he’s a crony of Brown or others at the OPCC.
Again, I’d like to emphasize the strong possibility that the way Woods and Brown handled my complaint reflects an ongoing policy of malfeasance.
My original complaint stated that on June 14, 2006, three Vancouver police officers — Constables John Doduk, Anna Grigoletto and Jeffrey Dy — sided with two violent security guards and supported their illegal actions.
The two security guards threatened to break my arms because I was walking up a public street. I reported that threat to 911. When I was told the police wouldn’t respond for several hours I returned to get the guards’ licence plate numbers. While I was writing down one of the licence numbers they grabbed me, pushed me, handcuffed me, shoved me to the ground, tried to press my face into the sidewalk, forced me to kneel in a painful stress position and threatened to kick my face in. The three Vancouver Police officers who showed up sided with the security guards from the beginning and behaved offensively towards me, showing extremely unprofessional animosity, bias and dereliction of duty.
The following are specific examples of biased, dishonest work by Woods and Brown. The examples from Woods come from his letter dated December 5th, 2006 (enclosed).
Woods ignored the fact that three of his colleagues — Vancouver police constables Jeffrey Dy, John Doduk and Anna Grigoletto — made me give my name, address and birth date to two security guards who had illegally handcuffed and assaulted me.
This violation of the Privacy Act is routine for some Vancouver police officers. (See page 17 of the Pivot Legal Society’s November 2008 report, Security Before Justice, www.pivotlegal.org/pdfs/securitybeforejustice.pdf) By ignoring this aspect of my complaint, Woods covered up for an ongoing, illegal practice among some Vancouver police officers.
By ignoring that aspect of my complaint, Woods also ignored evidence in my favour. Although Woods’ three colleagues falsely claim I was argumentative, I was co-operative to a fault. I was dealing with two violent security guards and three very belligerent Vancouver Police officers on an otherwise deserted street. I knew the police were wrong to make me give personal information to the security guards, but I was too scared to refuse.
Woods deliberately misinterpreted Section 494 of the Criminal Code, which deals with citizen’s arrest.
Woods claimed that Section 494 gives security guards the right to handcuff, detain (and by implication, assault) people on a public street when the security guards can explain their actions only with a vague, unsubstantiated allegation of “suspicion.”
Woods ignored the Criminal Code’s stipulations that the person arrested must be committing or have committed a criminal offence, or must be “escaping from and freshly pursued” for breaking the law, and that the people making the arrest need reasonable grounds to believe this is so.
None of those conditions apply in this case. The two security guards handcuffed and assaulted me while I was standing on a public sidewalk writing down one of their licence plate numbers.
They told police I was “suspicious.” That’s all. The allegation couldn’t be more vague or less substantiated. But according to Woods, that one word — “suspicious” — justifies a citizen’s arrest under Section 494 of the Criminal Code. It’s hard to believe such a stupid interpretation could be an honest mistake. Woods lied when he claimed Section 494 justified the security guards’ illegal actions. Woods lied to cover up for three of his colleagues who sided with the security guards’ illegal actions.
In doing so, Woods opened the door to more illegal arrests and also to expedient misinterpretations of other laws whenever it suits the police.
Woods brushed aside the assault committed by the security guards. Woods simply writes: “Given the version of events of the two security guards, a criminal charge of assault could not be supported.” That’s not nearly sufficient explanation for an important aspect of my complaint. I was assaulted for writing down their licence plate numbers. They assaulted me after they handcuffed my hands behind my back. Woods should have provided details of what the security guards told police at the time, and what they told VPD Professional Standards later.
Given the overall credibility of Woods’ letter, it’s possible that Woods is lying about the assault. It’s plausible that the security guards admitted the assault — even bragged about it. That’s plausible because of the security guards’ tough-guy demeanor in front of the three VPD officers (more information on this below), and the security guards’ apparent confidence that the VPD would support them no matter what they did.
Even if the security guards didn’t actually admit the assault, their denials may well have lacked credibility. That too is plausible, given their contradictory explanations for handcuffing me. (see below).
The fact that the three police officers refused to deal with the assault is an extremely important aspect of my complaint. The fact that Woods brushes it aside without explanation is a glaring problem that strongly reflects on Woods’ integrity.
Woods ignores another, related point. Even if a detailed examination of the assault did fail to find sufficient evidence for a criminal charge, the three Vancouver Police officers should have given the two security guards an extremely stern warning about illegal arrest, illegal use of handcuffs and criminal assault. Instead, the three officers openly sided with the security guards and behaved offensively to me. Woods, in turn, fully supported the actions of the security guards and his three colleagues.
Woods accepted contradictory statements from the security guards on another important point.
The two security guards told police that they handcuffed me because I wanted to fight them and that I consented to being handcuffed. Apart from the fact that both those statements are false, an independent observer can tell that they’re wildly contradictory. Woods was dishonest in pretending otherwise. This is important for two reasons. Woods used those wildly contradictory reasons to justify the use of handcuffs. Woods refused to consider how such an obvious contradiction reflects on the security guards’ overall credibility.
Woods not only accepted contradictory statements from the two security guards. Woods also made unsupported, subjective judgements about the security guards’ supposed honesty.
Woods states: “The security guards had an honest belief that you had committed a criminal offence in relation to property they were authorized to protect.” Later in his letter Woods repeats that “the security guards had an honest belief” that I had committed a crime. When Woods attributes “an honest belief” to the security guards, Woods is lying. There’s no objective or independent evidence to support that claim. It also runs contrary to the security guards’ contradictory statements.
Woods ignored evidence that I was standing on a public sidewalk writing down a licence plate number when the security guards handcuffed and assaulted me. I still have the paper with the licence numbers. If I were committing a crime, why would I be writing down licence plate numbers? Woods ignored this evidence to cover up for the security guards and his three colleagues.
Woods ignored the fact that the three VPD officers allowed one of the security guards to stick his face literally a few inches from mine and glower at me in an obviously intimidating manner while my hands were cuffed behind my back. That’s another indication of how the three police officers unprofessionally sided with two violent goons. It’s also an indication of how confident the two goons felt among Vancouver police, suggesting an improper relationship. Woods ignored this point because it reflects badly on the two security guards and his three colleagues.
Woods ignored the fact that VPD Constable Jeffrey Dy stated clearly and emphatically that the security guards have the legal right to handcuff anyone who walks down that street — even though it’s a public street.
Woods ignored the fact that VPD Constable John Doduk denied that I had previously phoned 911 to report that the security guards had threatened to break my arms. Woods acknowledged that I did phone 911, but Woods ignored Doduk’s denial. This is one indication that Doduk was either lying or had his facts wrong about what took place in this incident.
Woods dishonestly claimed I was “belligerent” to a 911 dispatcher. In fact the dispatcher was so rude to me that I had to ask to speak to someone else.
With so many problems manifest in Woods’ report, it’s highly likely that other aspects of the VPD Professional Standards investigation were also biased and dishonest. Woods or then-Sgt. Ian Upton (another VPD Professional Standards officer involved in the investigation) might have asked leading questions or coached witnesses to get the answers they wanted. Woods and Upton might have ignored contradictory statements besides those noted above. Woods and Upton might have cherry-picked facts.
Whatever faults Upton brought to this investigation, Woods shares responsibility. As a Vancouver Police inspector, Woods was the senior officer and the head of VPD Professional Standards. Woods had no reason to be ignorant of the way Upton handled internal investigations. Moreover, Woods’ letter of December 5th, 2006 shows that the decision was his.
In summary, Woods ignored several aspects of my complaint, including some of the most important aspects. That suggests he covered up evidence that supported me, or at least refused to follow up on those aspects of my complaint for fear of finding evidence that would support me. Woods also lied a number of times, most obviously in his dishonest interpretation of Section 494, but also with his unsupported claims that the two security guards were “honest.” Woods also accepted contradictory statements from the two security guards while constantly challenging my credibility.
These problems are so obvious that they likely reflect the way Woods handled other police complaints, except maybe those that received advance publicity or support from an influential group. This case suggests that Woods made his living by lying and covering up for misconduct and illegal actions by other police officers.
The OPCC regularly reviewed his work so OPCC staff like Brown should have known how Woods handled police complaints. Yet the OPCC hired him — quite possibly because of an OPCC commitment to dishonest work and also because of cronyism.
In his letter dated February 5th, 2007, deputy police complaint commissioner Bruce M. Brown supported virtually every aspect of the Vancouver Police Professional Standards investigation conducted under Woods’ leadership. The preceding remarks about Woods, therefore, also apply to Brown. In addition, here are some other problems with Brown’s review of this complaint.
Brown refused to act on the Vancouver Police breach of the Privacy Act.
Brown suggested he couldn’t act on it because, he wrote, it isn’t “a disciplinary default under the code of Conduct Regulations.” But it’s a violation of the Privacy Act and, as a report from the Pivot Legal Society later found, routine practice for some Vancouver Police officers. Brown therefore had an obligation to act on it.
Brown falsely stated: “There is no independent evidence that would seem to corroborate your allegations.” Brown deliberately ignored evidence in my favour.
Brown ignored the fact that I had a piece of paper with the security guards’ licence plate numbers. That evidence supports the fact that I was writing down a licence number when I was handcuffed and assaulted. Why would I be writing down a license plate number if I were committing a crime?
The guards’ contradictory statements about why they handcuffed me are also evidence supporting my complaint. Their contradictions on this important point show that the guards lacked a valid reason to handcuff me. Their contradictions also reflect on the guards’ overall credibility. But Brown actually made excuses for the security guards’ contradictory statements.
E-comm records show I had phoned 911 to report the security guards. This is evidence to support me on a point in which Doduk claimed the opposite.
The breach of the Privacy Act is relevant here too. The fact that I went along with it is evidence that I was co-operative to a fault, despite the police officers’ false claims that I was argumentative. I was dealing with two violent security guards and three very belligerent police officers on an otherwise deserted street. I was too scared not to co-operate.
In addition, Brown’s claim that there’s no evidence to support me must be considered in light of Brown’s credibility. Brown went along with every aspect of Woods’ dishonest report. Brown even agreed with Woods’ dishonest interpretation of Section 494 of the Criminal Code. It’s quite likely that Brown and Woods both covered up evidence in my favour.
Another indication of Brown’s dishonesty showed when he falsely claimed the three police officers “acted appropriately.”
There’s absolutely no independent evidence to support that statement and there are too many unanswered questions about how the police handled this incident.
Brown openly sided with Vancouver Police Professional Standards by dishonestly praising their work.
Brown described the investigation by Upton and Woods as “thorough and complete.” As noted above, the investigation was dishonest and ignored key aspects of my complaint. Brown’s description is false and shows his support for biased, dishonest police work. Brown’s praise might also reflect a personal relationship with Woods and Upton. They might be cronies.
In determining whether a public hearing was necessary under 60(5) of the Police Act, Brown disregarded a number of considerations:
Brown disregarded 60(5)(a) of the Police Act — the seriousness of the complaint. The complaint is serious because at least three aspects likely reflect ongoing problems with Vancouver Police.
1. Vancouver Police violated the Privacy Act which, according to the Pivot Legal Society, is routine practice for some Vancouver officers.
2. Vancouver Police deliberately misinterpreted Section 494 of the Criminal Code. That misinterpretation not only encourages illegal arrests by thuggish security guards but opens the door to wide-scale misinterpretation of other laws whenever it suits the police.
3. The actions of these three Vancouver Police officers could reflect an improper relationship between Vancouver Police and private security guards. Quite possibly Vancouver Police regularly support illegal arrests and gratuitous violence by private security.
Brown disregarded 60(5)(d) and 60(5)(d)(i) of the Police Act — whether an arguable case can be made that there was a flaw in the investigation. I’ve pointed out several serious flaws with the investigation by Vancouver Police Professional Standards.
Brown disregarded 60(5)(e) of the Police Act — whether a public hearing is necessary to preserve or restore public confidence in the complaint process or in the police. In handling this complaint, VPD Professional Standards and the OPCC showed overwhelming bias and dishonesty. They therefore undermined public confidence in both the complaint process and the police. The misconduct and illegal actions of police constables Anna Grigoletto, John Doduk and Jeffrey Dy likely reflect ongoing problems with Vancouver Police, and therefore undermine public confidence in the police.
The many flaws in the way Woods and Brown handled my complaint can’t be attributed to mistakes. Woods and Brown handled my complaint dishonestly. Furthermore, the fact that the OPCC hired Woods likely reflects cronyism and a commitment to dishonest work.
To put it bluntly, no one can screw up the way Woods and Brown screwed up unless it’s deliberate and they know they can get away with it. Their biased, dishonest work on my complaint likely reflects the way they handle other police complaints.
It also reflects their lack of accountability. No cabinet minister, nor the Ombudsman, nor any other watchdog has authority over the OPCC. The OPCC reports only to you.
You therefore have a duty to order an independent review of OPCC decisions and hiring practices, with a focus on Rollie Woods and Bruce M. Brown. To ensure fairness, the review should be conducted by people who are truly independent, not police, Crown prosecutors, or former police and Crown prosecutors.
Sincerely,
Greg Klein
Enclosures:
Letter from Rollie Woods of Vancouver Police Professional Standards, December 5th, 2006
Letter from Bruce M. Brown, B.C. deputy police complaint commissioner, February 5th, 2007
News and Comment page
More about Stan Lowe and the OPCC