VANCOUVER, B.C.: Two weeks after the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) brought attention to a Transit Police incident where an explosive was forgotten on a passenger jetliner during a dog training exercise, Transit Police have admitted that the officer didn’t leave the force because of that blunder – he left because he faced discipline for deceit, neglect of duty and corrupt practice.

“This Transit Police officer not only forgot an explosive on a plane, he took his police vehicle across the U.S. border three times without permission, lied in his duty records, and, worst of all, mistreated his police dog,” said Jordan Bateman, CTF B.C. Director. “That police dog had to receive veterinary care to bring it back to proper health – a fact the Transit Police has kept from the public for more than two years. What else are they hiding from the taxpayers?”

During the media coverage of the original story, where a Transit Police officer forgot an explosive on an Air Canada jetliner for two full days, many inferred from Transit Police comments that the officer resigned due to that mistake shortly after the January 2011 incident. This was not the case; the officer did not resign until September 2011 when facing suspension and dismissal in a different investigation.

In its 2011 annual report, the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner (OPCC) noted that an officer from an unnamed force was ordered fired for deceit and suspended eight days for four other serious violations of police ethics (report excerpt below). The officer had taken a police vehicle to the United Stated three times without permission, mistreated his police service dog and was deceitful in a duty report.

A whistleblower tipped off both the CTF and CKNW reporter Janet Brown that this unnamed individual was the same Transit Police officer who left the explosive on the plane. Transit Police finally confirmed that fact late last week.

“Even with national media attention last month, the Transit Police still hushed up the whole sordid story around this officer and dog,” said Bateman. “The taxpayers paying for these Transit Police officers, equipment and dogs deserve to know all the facts when it comes to what we are receiving for the $27 million we pay every year.”

The CTF has long been critical of the $27 million Transit Police force, which pays nearly 60 officers more than $100,000 a year. Two-thirds of Transit Police files are fare checks, and a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) audit showed the average transit cop works on less than ten serious or property crime files a year.

“This is a police force that is gasping for relevancy,” said Bateman. “Many taxpayers and riders are realizing just how superfluous the Transit Police are, and how moving to cheaper, more effective transit security would save money and actually increase the number of safety personnel on the system. It’s time to scrap this expensive experiment.”

—30—

For more information, contact Jordan Bateman, CTF B.C. Director, at [email protected] or 604-510-5535.

Full text of the findings of the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (found on page 19 of the 2011 OPCC annual report): 

Deceit / Neglect of Duty / Corrupt Practice
2011-6125

It was brought to the attention of the professional standards section of the police department that a member was using his police issued vehicle for unauthorized personal use. Pursuant to section 93(1)(a) of the Police Act, a request for an Order to Investigate was submitted to the OPCC. The background information provided was that on three separate occasions the member had been recorded at the Pacific Border Crossing returning to Canada in a police issued vehicle. Any trip across the border would require special permission from the member’s superiors and it was believed no such permission had been obtained.

A Police Act investigation commenced wherein the member was requested to provide a duty report. The member’s duty report contained inaccuracies in relation to his activities. In a subsequent statement provided by the member he admitted there were elements of deceit in the aforementioned duty report.

The investigation also determined that the member failed ensure the welfare of the police service dog in his care. The dog was taken from the member and veterinary care was required to bring the dog back to normal health.

Based on the final investigation report the discipline authority substantiated three counts of corrupt practice for the three counts of unauthorized use of a police vehicle; one count of neglect of duty for failing to care for the police service dog; and one count of deceit with respect to his making a false statement in his duty report.

These findings were upheld in a discipline proceeding that the member declined to attend. The discipline imposed was a two day suspension for each count of corrupt practice and a further two day suspension for one count of neglect of duty. These suspensions were to be served consecutively. The discipline imposed for the one count of deceit was dismissal. Although the member resigned before the discipline was imposed it will be reflected in his Service Record of Discipline.