re: policy complaint concerning street checks by the vancouver … · 2018. 9. 21. · june 14,...
TRANSCRIPT
UBCIC address: 401 – 312 Main Street, Vancouver, BC, V6A 2T2
BCCLA address: 306 – 268 Keefer Street, Vancouver, BC V6A 1X5 Shared lands of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skxwú7mesh (Squamish) & səlilw̓ətaʔɬ (Tsleil-Waututh)
June 14, 2018
Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner
5th Floor, 947 Fort St.
PO Box 9895, Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, BC V8W 9T8
Attn: Stan Lowe, Police Complaint Commissioner
Dear Commissioner Lowe,
Re: Policy Complaint Concerning Street Checks by the Vancouver Police Department
The Union of BC Indian Chiefs (“UBCIC”) and the BC Civil Liberties Association (“BCCLA”)
write to submit a Policy Complaint with the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner
(“OPCC”) under s. 168(1)(b) of the Police Act, RSBC 1996, c. 367.
We submit this complaint in respect to the inadequacy and inappropriateness of the
Vancouver Police Department’s (“VPD”) training programs, policies, and internal
procedures on the practice of “street checks” or police stops - the practice of stopping an
individual not due to an investigation or occurrence,1 questioning them and obtaining their
identifying information, and (with certain exceptions) recording the individual’s personal
information in the PRIME-BC database.
On May 24, 2018, the VPD released data on street checks from 2008 to 2017 based on a
Freedom of Information request. Over the period from 2008 to 2017, the VPD
conducted 97,281 street checks.2 Of the total, 15 percent (14,536) were of Indigenous people,
1 BC Ministry of Justice / Justice Institute of BC, British Columbia Guideline for Police Information Checks, at p. 56
< https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-
justice/police/standards/police_infochecks_guideline_3.pdf>. 2 Vancouver Police Department, Published Freedom of Information Requests, VPD Street Check Data 2008-2017 (Vancouver:
2018) <http://vancouver.ca/police/organization/public-affairs/freedom-of-information.html>.
2
despite this population making up only two percent of the population of Vancouver.3
In 2017, Indigenous people accounted for over 16 percent of the checks (1,033) despite
making up just over two percent of the population – overrepresentation by a factor of seven.4
From 2008 to 2017, over four percent (4,365) of the street checks were of Black people, despite
this population making up less than one percent of the population of Vancouver over this
time period.5 In 2017, Black people accounted for five percent of the checks (315) despite
making up only one percent of the population – overrepresentation by a factor of five.6
In the OPCC’s 2015-16 Annual Report, you recommended that the Vancouver Police Board
“… examine and reconsider any policies or procedures relating to the practice of conducting
investigative detention and street checks in light of an increasing trend in complaint
allegations involving the police practice of conducting street checks ...”7 You determined that
the VPD had no policy on the practice of street checks at the time. While a draft policy has
been in development, the VPD continues to have no policy – to our knowledge – on the
practice of street checks as of the date of this complaint.
In light of the above data, it is indisputable that Indigenous and Black people are
overrepresented in the rates of street checks conducted by the VPD. This results in
disproportionate rates of police stopping, questioning, and eliciting or recording the
personal information of people from Indigenous and Black communities. We are not
concerned with informal conversations between police and the public. We are concerned
with non-detention non-arrest interactions between police and the public that involve the
eliciting and recording of personal information. Our concern is deepened in that the VPD’s
own data reveal a racial disparity in the rates of street checks. While the data does not reveal
reasons for this disparity, we believe that there is a public interest in an immediate and
in-depth investigation by the OPCC into this matter.
The data create a strong suggestion that street checks are being conducted in a
discriminatory manner, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and B.C.’s
Human Rights Code.
The UBCIC upholds the principles and standards articulated in the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, A/RES/61/295 ("UN Declaration"). Article 2
3 Statistics Canada, Census Profile, 2016 Census, Vancouver, CY [Census subdivision], British Columbia and Greater
Vancouver, RD [Census division], British Columbia (table), Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001
(Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2018) ["2016 Census"] <https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-
pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E>. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 British Columbia, Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, 2015/2016 Annual Report (Victoria: Office of the Police
Complaint Commissioner, 2016), at p. 23: https://www.opcc.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2015-
2016_OPCC_Annual_Report.pdf.
3
of the UN Declaration states that “Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to
all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of
discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous
origin or identity.” The disproportionate number Indigenous people subject to street checks
is contrary to Article 2 of the UN Declaration.
We are also concerned as to the extent that the number of street checks conducted may be
used either formally or informally by the VPD and other police departments as an indicator
of performance. We understand that the VPD has stopped using this metric as a formal
performance measure, but we are concerned that it may continue to be used informally.
Our significant concern is supported by our experience, and that of other civil society
organizations, hearing reports about experiences with street checks or police stops. We often
hear reports of this practice affecting Indigenous and racialized people, and we hear from
individuals that they perceive their race to play a role in their being stopped. This perception
is complemented by evidence nationwide that Indigenous, Black, and Arab/Middle Eastern
youths are more likely than other youths to be questioned by police (see Anthony Doob and
Rosemary Gartner, Understanding the Impact of Police Stops, University of Toronto Centre for
Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, 17 January 2017 at p. A11).
The BCCLA and UBCIC strongly question the efficacy and necessity of street checks as a
policing practice. Neither the VPD, nor any police agency in Canada, has provided
compelling evidence to suggest that the practice achieves its stated aims, and that such aims
could not be achieved by other less rights-intrusive means. Law enforcement cite anecdotes
about how street checks have helped in particular cases, but positive crime-fighting
outcomes are not the sole basis for judging police action. There is insufficient evidence to
judge the claimed benefits of street checks against the now clearly established evidence of
the discriminatory effect of street checks in the City of Vancouver.
We note that in Ontario, it is now a province-wide requirement that officers must provide a
reason for requesting identifying information from a street check subject, and must inform
the subject of their right not to provide identifying information, subject to certain exceptions
(Collection of Identifying Information in Certain Circumstances - Prohibition and Duties,
O. Reg 58/16, under Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15). We are aware that VPD staff has
drafted, but the Vancouver Police Board has not adopted, a policy related to street checks.
Unlike the Ontario regulation, the draft policy would not require police to inform all subjects
of these rights. We do not think that that draft policy is adequate in its present form,
particularly in light of the new statistical evidence of discrimination.
In filing this complaint, we ask that you exercise the fullest extent of your statutory authority
to ensure that it is properly and fully investigated by the Vancouver Police Board. We further
4
request that you consider exercising your authority under s. 177(4) of the Police Act to take
all actions that you consider necessary to deal with this issue, including making
recommendations to the Vancouver Police Board, engaging in research on the practice of
street checks in all municipal police forces under the jurisdiction of the OPCC, including an
audit of all data related to this practice. We would support a recommendation by your office,
should you consider it appropriate, that the Director of Police Services or the Minister cause
an independent external audit and review of the practice of street checks, with a view to
creating a provincial standard to govern all law enforcement in British Columbia.
We appreciate your attention to this most pressing matter.
Sincerely,
On behalf of the UNION OF BC INDIAN CHIEFS
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip Chief Robert Chamberlin Kukpi7 Judy Wilson
President Vice-President Secretary-Treasurer
On behalf of the BC Civil Liberties Association
Josh Paterson
Executive Director
cc: Hon. Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General
Gregor Robertson, Mayor, City of Vancouver; Chair, Vancouver Police Board
Adam Palmer, Chief Constable, Vancouver Police Department
July 17, 2018
Via Email: [email protected]
His Worship Mayor Gregor Robertson
Chair, Vancouver Police Board
3rd Floor, City Hall
453 West 12th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5Y 1V4
Your Worship:
Re: Methodology for investigation of Service or Policy Complaint #2018-133 (Street
Checks); OPCC #2018-14863
The Union of BC Indian Chiefs (“UBCIC”) and the BC Civil Liberties Association
(“BCCLA”) write in respect of the Service or Policy complaint (“the Complaint”) we
filed with the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (“OPCC”) on June 14, 2018,
against the Vancouver Police Department (“VPD”) on the practice of “street checks” or
“police stops” (OPCC File No. 2018-14863).
On June 14, 2018, Andrea Spindler, Acting Deputy Commissioner for the OPCC,
forwarded you a copy of the Complaint. In that letter, Ms. Spindler cited the Vancouver
Police Board’s (the “Board”) obligations pursuant to s. 171(1) of the Police Act, RSBC
1996, c. 367 (the “Police Act”) as follows:
Upon receiving a copy of the complaint, pursuant to section 171(1) of the Police
Act, the board of the municipal police department to which the complaint relates,
must promptly do one or more of the following [Emphasis added]:
(a) request a chief constable of that municipal police department to
investigate and report on the complaint;
(b) initiate a study concerning the complaint;
(c) initiate an investigation into the complaint;
2
(d) dismiss the complaint with reasons;
(e) take any other course of action the board considers necessary to
respond adequately
Ms. Spindler also stated that, pursuant to s. 171(3) of the Police Act, the Board must
notify, within twenty (20) business days of doing any of the actions described in
subsection (1)(a) to (e) the Complainant, the Director of Police Services, and the Police
Complaint Commissioner as to the course of action the Board will take in respect to the
Complaint.
On June 19, 2018, we received a letter from Patti Marfleet, Executive Director for the
Board, acknowledging receipt of our Complaint, and confirming that the Complaint
will be formally considered at the meeting of the Board’s Service and Policy Complaints
Review Committee on September 20, 2018. In respect of the Board’s obligations under s.
171(1) of the Police Act, Ms. Marfleet states that, “I will advise you in writing of the
actions taken by the Committee with respect to this complaint.”
In an email correspondence with Ms. Marfleet, dated July 3, 2018, we were informed
that the VPD would be conducting the investigation into the Complaint. In her email,
Ms. Marfleet stated that, “As a matter of course the Department investigates all Service
and Policy complaints.”
On July 12, 2018, we filed an amendment to the Complaint with the OPCC that included
additional data released under a Freedom of Information request on both race and
gender of street checks conducted by the VPD.
As we will set out below, we have concerns about the VPD being the only body to
conduct an investigation and study into the Complaint. Therefore, we recommend that
the Board exercise its authority under s. 171(1)(e) to do, at least, the following:
1) initiate a study to be conducted at an academic institution or institutions by
experts in criminal justice science and sociolegal studies to independently
analyze and interpret the VPD’s data on police stops / street checks, the VPD’s
practice and policy, procedures and/or guidance on street checks, and the use of
street checks as a policing tool;
2) initiate a study to be conducted by an academic institution or institutions by
experts in discrimination, stereotyping and equality rights, including Indigenous
academics and experts, to independently investigate and make conclusions on
the impacts of police stops / street checks on Indigenous and racialized people;
3
3) following the lead of the Toronto Police Services Board, commission a
community-based research assessment of police contacts to determine the
satisfaction of particularly affected racialized or geographic communities (urban
Indigenous people, people in the Downtown Eastside, black people) with
policing with particular focus on police stops / street checks, to measure the
impact of police stops and street checks and to make recommendations in
relation to police stops and street checks in Vancouver. This assessment must
include consultation with all Indigenous organizations working on justice,
poverty, and youth issues located in Vancouver; and
4) work with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British
Columbia, and interested Indigenous organizations, to develop and draft policies
on data collection, protection, and retention that protect the personal information
of persons subject to police stops and street checks. Any new policy should
provide for annual release of police stop/street check statistics, as well as for
routine compliance audits to ensure that VPD practice aligns with policy.
We discuss each of these in more detail below. Note that this list is not exhaustive, and
other community stakeholders, and the Police Complaints Commissioner, may have
additional ideas that could inform the Board’s approach to this matter.
VPD self-investigation in relation to street checks is problematic
We understand that it is customary for the VPD to investigate and report back to the
Board on policy complaints that have been accepted for investigation by the Board, and
that in this case, Chief Constable Palmer has indicated that the VPD will conduct such
an investigation and report to the Board without waiting to be instructed by the Board
to do so. While we appreciate the speed of the Chief’s decision to engage in this work,
we are highly troubled by the lack of independence, and the lack of the appearance of
independence, of the VPD’s investigation and reporting on its own practices in this
case. Given the public interest in a review of this matter that appears independent and
is independent in fact, it is clear to us that the VPD must not be the only body to
conduct an investigation in relation to this Complaint.
Our concerns about VPD self-investigation of this complaint are heightened by recent
public statements by Chief Constable Adam Palmer, which create an appearance that
the VPD has already formed conclusions on the Complaint prior to an investigation. For
example, in a media release, dated June 14, 2018, Chief Constable Palmer commented
on the practice of street checks as follows:
“The VPD's street checks are not based on ethnicity. If our officers see potential
criminal activity or a threat to public safety, they are bound by law, including the
4
Police Act, to address it. […] A person's race does not factor into an officer’s
decision to take action to prevent a crime.”
Whether the race of individuals plays a role, consciously or unconsciously, in the
conduct of street checks is a question at issue in this complaint. Chief Constable
Palmer’s statement appears to predetermine a key question that must be considered.
Chief Constable Palmer went on to state that:
“There is a strong association between street checks and criminal charges. The
numbers show that the percentage of street checks by ethnicity is comparable to
percentages by ethnicity for charges and recommended charges.
The VPD does not control where crime falls along racial and gender lines. It is
unrealistic to expect population and crime ratios to be aligned.”1
In a June 18, 2018 interview with CBC Radio’s The Early Edition, Chief Constable Palmer
stated that:
“The arrest statistics that we have in the city, they match the demographics that
we have for street checks as well. […] It reinforces the fact that those are the
people who are committing crimes in our city.”2
Again, these statements create an appearance that the VPD have formed a preliminary
conclusion to a question that is at issue in this complaint as to the reason for the
overrepresentation of certain racialized groups in street check statistics, prior to any
investigative steps having been taken.
Our concern with the statements of Chief Constable Palmer is that the investigation into
the Complaint be free from a reasonable apprehension of bias. Based on the VPD’s
public response from the outset, a reasonable-minded observer of this issue would have
firm grounds to be concerned that the VPD’s investigation of the Complaint are affected
by an appearance of bias. As an administrative decision-maker, the Board is bound by
the tenets of administrative law, which include procedural fairness and natural justice.
Procedural fairness “requires that decisions be made free from a reasonable
apprehension of bias, by an impartial decision-maker.”3 While Chief Constable Palmer
1 “Statement on Street Checks from Chief Constable Adam Palmer”, Vancouver Police Department, June 14, 2018: https://mediareleases.vpd.ca/2018/06/14/statement-on-street-checks-from-chief-constable-adam-palmer/ (accessed June 27, 2018) 2 “VPD chief defends police checks after allegations of racial bias”, The Early Edition, CBC, June 18, 2018: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vpd-chief-defends-police-checks-1.4711020 (accessed on June 27, 2018) 3 Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, [1999] F.C.J. No. 39, at para 45.
5
is not the administrative decision-maker in this complaint, those who are tasked with
investigating this complaint at VPD ultimately report to the Chief Constable. Even if
those officers do their job as impartially as they can, the appearance of bias has already
set in. In our view, the Board has an obligation to ensure that its investigation and/or
study into the Complaint be free from a reasonable apprehension of bias. It must
therefore make sure that it bases its decisions in this complaint on a broader range of
information that that provided by the VPD.
In addition, in order for the Board to understand the impact of the VPD’s practice of
street checks on individuals and communities, the investigation should hear from the
affected communities about their experiences and concerns. Many of the affected
individuals and communities that will have valuable information for the Board’s
deliberations are very unlikely to feel comfortable sharing that information with a VPD-
led investigation. The position of the UBCIC and BCCLA is that an investigation into
the Complaint should be in-depth, independent, informed by Indigenous academics,
experts, community members and organizations, and, most importantly, impartial.
For all of these reasons, we urge the Board to exercise its authority under the Police Act
to respond to the Complaint by commissioning independent reports in order to provide
the Board with a sound basis on which to consider the practice of police stops and street
checks. Whether or not the Board agrees with the UBCIC and BCCLA that there is a
potential appearance of bias in the VPD’s investigation of itself, the recommendations
below nevertheless offer, in our view, a promising avenue to ensure a proper,
independent investigation of this complaint and a more complete picture of the
situation on which to base the Board’s decisions.
1. Interpretation of the Data on Street Checks and Their Use as a Policing Tool
We recommend that the investigation into the Complaint include a review of, and
report on, the VPD’s policies and practices on street checks. The investigation into the
VPD’s policies on street checks would include a review of the current policies and
procedures on street checks developed by the VPD. Moreover, the investigation would
include a review of the current practice of street checks conducted by VPD officers.
Such a review must consider any identified costs to policing effectiveness alongside
identified benefits, such as the potential loss of cooperation from affected communities
and the impact on policing of damage to police-community relations. Following this
review, we would ask that the investigator issue recommendations for revised policies
and procedures on the practice of street checks that address the concerns raised in the
Complaint.
6
Police services, including the VPD, cite the usefulness of street checks as a tool to solve
and prevent crime. However, there is significant academic debate over the costs and
benefits of street checks as a policing tool.
In the Toronto context, the Toronto Police Services Board commissioned an academic
study by two criminology professors at the University of Toronto.4 The professors
analyzed data on policing and crime rates from across North America and concluded
that
“the evidence that it is useful to stop, question, identify, and/or search people
and to record and store this information… appears to us to be substantially
outweighed by convincing evidence of the harm of such practices both to the
person subject to them and to the long term and overall relationship of the
police to the community.” (pg A22)
The Board is well-placed to contribute to this debate and to the understanding of the
use of street checks in the Vancouver context by initiating a study of the VPD’s street
check data and practices.
The VPD’s own review of its practices, in our view, is not adequate for the reasons
outlined above in this letter. While VPD has strongly suggested that it finds street
checks useful, the Board needs objective information to draw a conclusion. We also note
that even to the extent street checks prove useful, that utility must be judged against
any possible disadvantages, social costs or costs to policing effectiveness in other ways
that may be identified.
With respect to the interpretation of the data on VPD street checks and the evaluation of
the use of street checks as a practice, we recommend that the Board exercise its
authority under the Police Act to respond to the Complaint by:
initiating a study to be conducted at an academic institution or institutions by
experts in criminal justice science and sociolegal studies to independently
analyze and interpret the VPD’s data on police stops / street checks, the VPD’s
practice and policy, procedures and/or guidance on street checks, and the use of
street checks as a policing tool.
2. The Impact of Street Checks on Indigenous and Racialized People
Given the statements made by Chief Constable Palmer quoted above, we have concerns
that the VPD lacks the institutional knowledge to understand the unique impacts that
4 Anthony N. Doob and Rosemary Gartner, “Understanding the Impact of Police Stops” Report prepared for the Toronto Police Services Board (17 January 2017).
7
street checks could have on Indigenous and racialized people who are overrepresented
in the criminal justice system.
There is evidence that police stops – even those that do not lead to criminal justice
consequences – can have negative impacts on people by leading to political alienation,
distrust and civic disengagement.5 Given the disproportionate number of Indigenous
and racialized people subject to street checks as revealed in the VPD street check data, it
is possible that Indigenous and racialized people are disproportionately affected by
such negative consequences in Vancouver. We note that whether or not the VPD
intends to discriminate, whether they target Indigenous and racialized individuals, and
whether street checks are based on ethnicity or race – is not relevant to the question of
whether Indigenous and racialized minorities experience a disproportionate and
discriminatory impact. Discriminatory intent is not necessary to establish the existence
of systemic or individualized discrimination under Canadian law – what matters is the
effect of the policy or actions.
We further point out to the Board that the fact that Indigenous and racialized
individuals are overrepresented in other parts of the criminal justice system provides no
satisfactory justification at all as to why they should be overrepresented in street checks.
The Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, nearly two decades ago,
commented on the potential reasons for the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in
the criminal justice system:
“Differences in crime statistics between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people
result, at least in part, from the manner in which the behaviour of Aboriginal
people becomes categorized and stigmatized. This may happen because, to a
certain extent, police tend to view the world in terms of "respectable" people and
"criminal" types. Criminal types are thought to exhibit certain characteristics
which provide cues to the officer to initiate action. Thus, the police may tend to
stop a higher proportion of people who are visibly different from the dominant
society, including Aboriginal people, for minor offences, simply because they
believe that such people may tend to commit more serious crimes.”6
With respect to arrests and charges of Indigenous people, the Report referred to
testimony of witnesses who appeared before the Inquiry:
5 Doob and Gartner, supra note 8 at pg B36. 6 Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, Vol 1: The Justice System and Aboriginal People, Chapter 4: ABORIGINAL OVER-REPRESENTATION (“Aboriginal Justice Inquiry”): http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter4.html#15 (accessed on June 27, 2018)
8
“Many who appeared before us complained about being stopped on the street or
on a country road and questioned about their activities. We heard complaints
that Aboriginal people are charged with offences more often than their non-
Aboriginal counterparts. They may also be charged with a multiplicity of
offences arising out of the same incident. Many charges are never proceeded
with and appear to have been unnecessary. We believe that many Aboriginal people
are arrested and held in custody, where a non-Aboriginal person in the same
circumstances either might not be arrested at all or might not be held.”7
The overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system is well
documented. In the Gladue case,8 the Supreme Court of Canada commented that the
overrepresentation of Indigenous people in Canadian prisons is, in part, the result of a
broader societal bias:
“[The excessive imprisonment of aboriginal people is only the tip of the iceberg
insofar as the estrangement of the aboriginal peoples from the Canadian criminal
justice system is concerned. Aboriginal people are overrepresented in virtually
all aspects of the system. [T]here is widespread bias against aboriginal people
within Canada, and “[t]here is evidence that this widespread racism has
translated into systemic discrimination in the criminal justice system.”9
We suggest that the Board should not be satisfied by the analysis quickly suggested by
the VPD in its public statements – which seems to point to a conclusion that we should
not be concerned about the overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized people in
street checks because it is consistent with the rest of the criminal justice system. Instead,
in our view the Board must critically consider the long-established evidence of
overrepresentation in other aspects of the system and its relationship, if any, to the
overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black people in the rates of street checks.
We wish to note, additionally, that while our letters to the Police Complaints
Commissioner highlight the dramatic overrepresentation of Indigenous people
generally, and Black men and Indigenous women in particular, our complaint includes
all the VPD-released street check statistics for other racialized groups intersecting with
gender, and the incidence of overrepresentation, where statistically significant, of other
groups is an issue raised in this complaint.
7 Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, ibid. 8 R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC) (“Gladue”).
9 Gladue, ibid, at para 61.
9
The Board is well-placed to ensure an investigation that contributes to our
understanding of the impacts of street checks on Indigenous and racialized people by
commissioning a study or studies on the issue in the Vancouver context. We
recommend that the Board exercise its authority under the Police Act to respond to the
Complaint by:
initiating a study to be conducted by an academic institution or institutions by
experts in discrimination, stereotyping and equality rights, including Indigenous
academics and experts, to independently investigate and make conclusions on
the impacts of street checks on Indigenous and racialized people.
3. Community-based research assessment of police contacts
In order to better understand the impact of carding in Toronto, the Toronto Police
Services Board commissioned independent researchers to conduct a Community-Based
Assessment of Police Contact Carding in 2014.10 The Assessment involved over 400
community interviews with residents, included two community forums – first to
provide feedback on the proposed research activities and later on the findings emerging
from the research – and employed 23 youth research assistants to help with the
evidence-gathering. The study’s objectives were to “(1) determine community
satisfaction with policing during the June to August, 2014 time period; (2) measure the
impact of the Board’s Community Contacts policy; and, (3) make recommendations for
changes or improvements to the Board’s Community Contacts policy.”11 The
community-based research approach used by the assessment involved community
members in deciding what to research, how to conduct the research, and what to do
with the findings.12
Community-based research is “[a] research approach that involves active participation
of stakeholders, those whose lives are affected by the issue being studied, in all phases
of research for the purpose of producing useful results to make positive changes.”13
We think that such a project along the lines of what was conducted in Toronto will fill a
critical gap in the public’s and the Board’s knowledge as to the lived experience of
individuals from communities that experience a disproportionate rate of police contact.
We therefore recommend that the Board use its authority to:
10 Price, Neil, “The Issue Has Been With Us For Ages” – A Community-Based Assessment of Police Contact Carding in 31 Division – Final Report, November 2014. Accessed at https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn000043559042-eng.pdf 11 Ibid. at p. 16. 12 Ibid. at p. 21. 13 Community Based Research Canada, “Introduction to CBR”, accessed at https://communityresearchcanada.ca/intro-to-cbr/.
10
following the lead of the Toronto Police Services Board, commission a
community-based research assessment of police contacts to determine the
satisfaction of particularly affected racialized or geographic communities (urban
Indigenous people, people in the Downtown Eastside, black people) with
policing with particular focus on police stops / street checks, to measure the
impact of police stops and street checks and to make recommendations in
relation to police stops and street checks in Vancouver. This assessment must
include consultation with all Indigenous organizations working on justice,
poverty, and youth issues located in Vancouver.
4. Collection, Protection, and Retention of the Data on Street Checks
A related concern to the interpretation of the data on street checks is whether the VPD’s
policies and practices on the collection, protection, and retention of personal
information on law enforcement databases, such as PRIME-BC, is in compliance with
provincial privacy legislation.14 Specifically, we are concerned that non-conviction
information, such as personal information collected in a street check, may be disclosed
to public and private bodies other than law enforcement agencies, and may be retained
in law enforcement databases for an indefinite period of time. Moreover, we are
concerned that there is no process for a person to have non-conviction records
expunged from these databases.
In addition, in order to understand the impact of street checks over time, under any
new policy that may be adopted, it is necessary to ensure that reliable aggregate data is
regularly produced. Without this, neither the VPD, oversight bodies such as the Board
and the OPCC, nor the public will have any way of understanding how the tool is being
used.
With respect to the VPD’s policies and practices on the collection, protection, and
retention of personal information related to street checks, we recommend that the Board
exercise its authority under the Police Act to respond to the Complaint by:
Working with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for
British Columbia, and interested Indigenous organizations, and independent
privacy and database experts familiar with best practices for privacy protection
in law enforcement, to develop and draft policies on data collection, protection,
and retention that protect the personal information of persons subject to street
checks.
14 See Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c. 165, Part 3, Division 1 (“FOIPPA”).
11
Ensuring that any new policy provides for annual release of police stop/street
check statistics, as well as for routine compliance audits to ensure that VPD
practice aligns with policy.
Please note that the recommendations that we make above represent our initial thinking
on how the Board might address this complaint. As evidence emerges, it could give rise
to additional questions not addressed by the methods above. Furthermore, it is
important that the Board receive input from other stakeholder groups, particularly
those representing people with lived experience, on what might be required to address
the questions raised in this complaint. While the community-based research proposal
aims to fulfil this function, there may be additional ideas from others that could guide
the Board in its consideration of this matter.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns about the methodology to be used in
considering this Complaint.
Sincerely,
On behalf of the UNION OF BC INDIAN CHIEFS
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip Chief Robert Chamberlin Kukpi7 Judy Wilson
President Vice-President Secretary-Treasurer
On behalf of the BC Civil Liberties Association
Josh Paterson
Executive Director
cc: Hon. Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General
Stan Lowe, Police Complaints Commissioner
Adam Palmer, Chief Constable, Vancouver Police Department
5th Floor, 947 Fort Street, PO Box 9895, Stn Prov Govt, Victoria, BC V8W 9T8 P: 250.356.7458 | 1.877.999.8707 | www.opcc.bc.ca
June 14, 2018 VIA E-MAIL: [email protected] His Worship Mayor Gregor Robertson Chair, Vancouver Police Board 3rd Floor, City Hall 453 West 12th Avenue Vancouver, BC V5Y 1V4 Dear Mayor Robertson: Re: Service or Policy Complaint – Vancouver Police Department OPCC File No. 2018-14863 On June 14, 2018, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (OPCC) received a complaint from the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and the BC Civil Liberties Association with respect to the inadequacy and inappropriateness of the Vancouver Police Department's training programs, policies, and internal procedures on the practice of "street checks" or police stops - the practice of stopping an individual not due to an investigation or occurrence, questioning them and obtaining their identifying information, and (with certain exceptions) recording the individual's personal information in the PRIME-BC database. We are attaching a copy of the complaint which identifies the contact person with each organization and their contact information. The OPCC has determined there are no public trust aspects to this complaint. As you are aware, a service or policy complaint may include a complaint regarding the general direction and management or operation of a municipal police department. It may also include a complaint about the inadequacy or inappropriateness of a municipal police department’s policies or internal procedures, training programs or resources, staffing or resource allocation, or the department’s ability to respond to requests for assistance. Upon receiving a copy of the complaint, pursuant to section 171(1) of the Police Act, the board, having authority over the municipal police department to which the complaint relates, must promptly do one or more of the following:
(a) Request that the chief constable of that municipal police department investigate and report on the complaint;
2
Service or Policy OPCC File:2018-14863
June 14, 2018
Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner
British Columbia, Canada
(b) Initiate a study concerning the complaint;
(c) Initiate an investigation into the complaint;
(d) Dismiss the complaint with reasons; and/or
(e) Take any other course of action the board considers necessary to respond adequately to the complaint.
Pursuant to section 171(3) of the Act, within 20 business days after doing any of the things described in subsection (1)(a) to (e), the board must notify the Complainant, the Director of Police Services and the Police Complaint Commissioner regarding the course of action being taken. The Police Complaint Commissioner may request a status report from the board regarding the progress of an investigation or a study concerning a complaint under Division 5. The police board must send an explanation for actions taken by the board under section 171 (1) and if applicable, a detailed summary of the results of any investigation or study initiated to the Complainant, the Director of Police Services and the Police Complaint Commissioner. If the Complainant is dissatisfied with the board’s actions, explanations, or results from the investigation or the summary of those results, that person may, within 20 business days of receiving the explanation or summary, request the Police Complaint Commissioner to review the matter. Should you have any questions regarding the above or with respect to the Police Act process, please do not hesitate to contact me at (250) 356-7458 or by email at [email protected]. Yours truly,
Andrea Spindler Acting Deputy Police Complaint Commissioner Attachment cc: Chief Constable Adam Palmer Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, Union of BC Indian Chiefs Mr. Josh Paterson, Executive Director, BC Civil Liberties Association