SLIDE 16 Response: Engaging the OIPRD
OIPRD’s misconduct findings, February 15, 2018:
Finding of discreditable conduct: “At the scene, investigators did not know whether [Stacy] was intoxicated at the material time. Nonetheless, they showed little determination to truly keep an open mind as to what transpired. Even the evidence
- f [Stacy]’s intoxication did not point only to an accidental drowning, nor did it
exclude, without proper investigation, foul play contributing to how he ended up in the river. The police were not justified in adopting an approach which too readily assumed that intoxication explained a sudden death, or warranted a diminished level
- f diligence in investigating what happened.”
Finding of neglect of duty by investigative officers who “misconceived” their responsibilities, and “failed to follow up with identified witnesses in an adequate or timely way. In any event, police must be proactive in building trust in relation to each
- investigation. Little or none of that occurred here. Civilian Witness 7’s offer to share
what he learned with investigators was spurned for no valid reason.” Finding of neglect of duty by supervisory Acting Inspector, noting she did not bear sole responsibility for inadequate supervision and oversight of the death investigation: “At the time of the investigation, TBPS did not have a formal review process for ongoing death investigations. That raised obvious systemic issues. A culture of critical assessment by supervisors of ongoing death investigations did not appear to exist, certainly in relation to sudden death cases”
16