Stride Orthopaedics & Footwear
United Way
Kowal Insurance Brokers
Wayne Toyota
Bill Martins
News
Click here to see more
Subscribe
Community Calendar
Click here for full listings.
Poll
Should city council approve a plan to allow Thunder Bay voters to vote online or by phone in the next municipal election?



Total Votes: 74
View Results Past Polls

Market Research

Do you own your own home?
Who's Modo
User Submitted Photo Gallery
Submit Your Own Photos
2012-10-23 at 15:05

Appeal planned

By Jamie Smith, tbnewswatch.com
Do you want to BREAK YOUR BANK?Banks put holds your cheques. They make you wait in line. Choose a better, quicker option. Visit XTRA CASH! Click here for full list of services

THUNDER BAY -- City police officers found guilty of misconduct plan to appeal a hearing’s decision to penalize them.

Det. William Wowchuck and Det.-Const. Brad Bernst were each found guilty of a count of misconduct by unlawful or unnecessary authority, which stems from an arrest last September outside of a Money Mart on Memorial Avenue.

Office of the Independent Review Director hearing officer Morris Elbers sentenced Wowchuck, who was the supervisor during the arrest, to eight hours without pay and remedial training Tuesday.

Bernst will receive a reprimand and similar training.

Their lawyer, Seth Weinstein, said he has already filed an appeal.

“We’re still very disappointed that there was a finding of misconduct made at all,” Weinstein said.

“We acknowledge that (the arrest) was a mistake in hindsight but it didn‘t deserve a finding of misconduct or any penalty whatsoever.”

The incident that led to the hearing took place in September of 2011. The officers, who are members of the local police force's drug enforcement street team, were watching a suspected drug house on Oliver Road when they decided to arrest the driver of the first car they saw leave the home.

The complainant Richard Burns, was the driver police targeted.

The hearing officer heard that Burns was followed to Money Mart where the arrest was made by Bernst and Wowchuck. Burns was released a short time later.

In his decision Elbers said that the officers never saw any people leaving or entering the home on Oliver Road.

Based on testimony from six witnesses over the four-day hearing in July he said it was clear the officers wouldn’t have been able to see where people from cars parked in the laneway near the home were going.

The hearing officer concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to arrest Burns. Instead it appeared to be a “wish and a prayer” by the officers.

While an appeal has already been filed, Elbers said in his decision that the penalty could have been more severe had it not been for numerous commendations submitted to the hearing. He also said their actions damaged the reputation of the police force.

Thunder Bay Police Service deputy chief Andy Hay said he thought the officers acted professionally during the hearing but anytime something negative happens it does reflect badly on the force because police are held to a higher standard.

“Higher accountability than anybody else in our community,” he said.

Hay said he didn’t know what the training for the officers would look like.

“They made a split second decision it turned out their decision was incorrect.”
 

Click here to submit a letter to the editor.
iCar

Click here to report a typo or error

Tbnewswatch.com(44)

Comments

We've improved our comment system.
Sui Generis says:
8 hours without pay? Oh yeah, that'll teach 'em.

"“We acknowledge that (the arrest) was a mistake in hindsight but it didn‘t deserve a finding of misconduct or any penalty whatsoever.”

Do your clients understand what misconduct is? They admit they made a mistake, that they arrested someone without cause. THAT is misconduct. Are 2 and 2 really that hard to put together?
10/23/2012 3:35:17 PM
TIC says:
Hmmm, not quite sure you actually understand the difference between misconduct and a mistake yourself. To help you out I have found this for you:
mis·con·duct
1.
a. Behavior not conforming to prevailing standards or laws; impropriety.
b. The act or an instance of adultery.
2. Dishonest or bad management, especially by persons entrusted or engaged to act on another's behalf.
3. Deliberate wrongdoing, especially by government or military officials.

mis·take
1. An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness.
2. A misconception or misunderstanding.

They did make the the "mistake" of arresting a subject who they thought left the scene through a split second decision. Was it the right choice? Obviously it wasn't, did they act inappropriately during the arrest (haven't heard they had). Did they follow the law in making the arrest ie read him his rights - as far as we have been told they did. So maybe this will help you with you addition of 2+2.
10/23/2012 6:10:13 PM
nova1 says:
"Behavior not conforming to prevailing standards or laws;impropriety" such as arresting someone without reason?

"dishonest or BAD MANAGEMENT especially by persons entrusted or engaged to act on another's behalf" I would consider making the decision to arrest an innocent person poor management.
Sure it was a mistake, but as it says in the article, Police officers are held to a higher standard, since we entrust them with the responsibility of upholding the law. They don't get to make careless mistakes like this. Before you spew more definitions think of the standards by which heart surgeons, or stock brokers are held.
10/24/2012 10:37:32 AM
TIC says:
I wouldn't call this dishonest inn any way, yes they made a really poor choice in what they did and I don't support the decision that they made; however, it was a mistake and not misconduct. personally I am glad to see that our Policing Services are actually trying to do something to better the city. I do feel for the person wrongfully accused as I have been in that situation before myself. I was released with an apology and explained the situation. Unfortunately when dealing with a population as large as ours 1 description and match hundreds(this was my case) and we are all only human. They obviously need to think a bit more before acting but at least they trying.
10/25/2012 1:11:33 AM
The Badger Mountain Hermit says:
Two-Tier Justice. "Serve and Protect"? No. Serve and COLLECT. Taxmen with guns.
10/23/2012 3:36:33 PM
trent says:
And some people wonder why the local police get a lack of respect. They do nothing to deserve it.
10/23/2012 3:56:17 PM
kirkage says:
320 dollar fine and a blemish on thier records for a desicion that took seconds and a 10 minute detention. That is pretty significant. What more could you want? From what i read it doesnt sound like too major of an incident.
10/23/2012 4:34:16 PM
Sui Generis says:
They wrongfully arrested someone, who gets to deal with that emotional baggage for the rest of his life, perpetuating more fear and a lack of respect for the police in general in the process. For that, one day's pay is not enough of a penalty.

There is a reason that arrest carries a procedure. Unfortunately, in modern day society, the police seldom care about procedures that were put in place to protect the public.
10/23/2012 5:35:16 PM
compassn says:
What ? Police are not allowed to confine/apprehend/arrest and search based solely on their "gut" feeling ! This is horrendous ! Next you'll be telling us they can't beat you up in the streets and fill your eye's with pepper spray....what is this dictatorship coming to !
10/23/2012 5:04:32 PM
damanisback says:
drug dealers make more money than cops, so they can afford better lawyers or they would have gotten off scott free
10/23/2012 5:07:18 PM
dopedoctor says:
no one cares! take this off the news article
10/23/2012 5:08:02 PM
Helenahandbasket says:
Im curious who is paying for the officers lawyer. My first guess is the Police department. So this lawyer is filing an appeal for an incident that the officers should have been found guilty of, so there is more of the tax payers money. No wonder the Chief has no idea how their budget is going to look at the end of the year.
10/23/2012 5:25:23 PM
tsb says:
Without pay? Is that a typo?

Well there is a first for everything I guess.
10/23/2012 5:27:27 PM
random says:
Glad to see this site sticks true to it's form...allow any and all disparaging comments towards anything public service, especially police, but not to anything else that may be remotely "sensitive".
You people are brutal with your comments. Yes their lawyer states they acknowledge the arrest was a mistake, but they are allowed their due process, which includes their right to appeal, like anyone else. People get brutally assaulted, and the accused more often then not walks, and nadda said.
Nor do any of you know all the facts involved, yet you toss out those pathetic comments.
Maybe the drug unit should just stop targeting people they obviously know are involved in the drug trade, that way all you experts could sit back and rejoice. But don't go cryin to the cops when your kids come home all baked on drugs.
10/23/2012 6:04:56 PM
HelenaHandbasket says:
The officers messed up, plain and simple and they need to accept their punishment. I am not anti-police like your post implies. As a matter of fast, I am usually the first person to side with the police, not to mention my father was an officer of our police force for 34 years. The officers got off extremely easy, 8 hours without pay isnt even a full shift for them. They need accept the consequence for their wrongful actions.
10/23/2012 10:04:18 PM
Random says:
You don't know they messed up. You weren't there. Maybe the admission of fault is to appease the throngs of liberal minded "i can do whatever i want" people. Read some of the posts here by people who live near there, or know the guy to some degree that they arrested.
Read the post by Curious. Read the post by Via. Or the excellent post's by undecide and bshaw16.

But no, even without knowing what happended for real, you and everyone else quickly condemns the officers.
For you to condemn them as well w/o knowing all the real facts is like a slap across your fathers face.
This site should maybe take the time and effort to approach the police, and get a real indepth report and their side, but hey, that would be actual journalism, something not covered by the tbnewswatch mandate.
10/24/2012 12:16:39 AM
nova1 says:
And you don't know that they didn't mess up. In your words " you weren't there.
Also do you actually presume the officers admitted their guilt to "appease the throngs of liberal minded..." is that how the legal system works these days?
Also I find it hilarious how you bash the site, and call into questions its journalistic integrity, and yet clearly spend all day reading every comment.
You defend the officers without knowing what happened for real, you and everyone else quickly praise the officers.
:)
10/24/2012 10:47:47 AM
animiki says:
But...evidence was presented at a duly-constituted judicial hearing, they had their say, the accusers had their say, and a judge determined the outcome. That's as close to the "truth" as any of us are ever going to get.

This isn't a case of general cop-bashing or crim-loving. This is an instance wherein these officers were found guilty of abusing their lawful authority to arrest someone, curtailing the freedom normally allowed to all of us. If anyone else does that it, it's a serious crime called "kidnapping". We MUST hold the police to the highest possible standards of conduct and make every effort to ensure they don't abuse their authority--authority that includes not only arrest, but also use of lethal force.

Cops have a very difficult job. I wouldn't want to do it, and I admire those who do and consistently perform to high legal, ethical and moral standards. But they're human, and they fall prey to human vices and emotions. Doesn't matter. They have to remain pure regardless.
10/24/2012 12:42:21 PM
Via says:
I care. I live close to this drug plus whatever house. I am sick and tired of the traffic.. foot, car, and truck, travelling the lane night and day. I am glad the police tried to take care of it. Sorry it didn't work out and sorry that the law took the side of the wrong people. I personally want to thank the police for trying to clean up my neighborhood. I appreciate it.
10/23/2012 6:18:01 PM
udecide says:
LOL....Thunder Bay , where the cops are the bad guys and drug dealers/ users are the good guys....BACKWARD hell ya....sentencing for murder is average two years or less in jail..VIGILANTE TIME FOLKS..
10/23/2012 7:49:02 PM
Curious says:
They had every right to go after this fellow. He has pulled this off before and sued and won, this is his way of life! Stop penalizing the police for doing their job!
10/23/2012 8:07:54 PM
Sui Generis says:
In fact, they DIDN'T have that right, which is why they were found guilty of abusing their authority.

They saw a car leave the area of a drug dealers. They had no proof he came FROM that house, no proof that he had drugs and no proof that he did anything wrong, short of driving in the neighbourhood they were watching. They arrested him anyways. You can NOT arrest someone without evidence.

This isn't rocket science.
10/23/2012 10:54:35 PM
bshaw16 says:
if you read the decision the complainant was found to be decietful and the allegations of theft and assault were tossed. These officers would have been cleared internally and by the Crown who had no interest in filing. Forget the fact that these officers have removed millions of dollars worth of drugs, weapons and proceeds of crime from the streets of thunder bay. Thunder Bay is a better place because of the hard work of these and other members of this regions police forces (TBPS, NAPS, APS, T3PS, OPP, RCMP etc.)
10/23/2012 8:51:40 PM
October says:
They didn't pick up some girl scout selling cookies, they arrested someone they thought was commiting a crime...and they were wrong. What if there was a child molester around town...would it piss you all off so much if the police arrested someone they believed was the perpetrator and got it wrong. Is it not better to take a chance rather than let it slip away? Maybe I am not as sensitive as the rest of you but if I was in and around, or doing sketchy things, I wouldn't blame the police for questioning or arresting me to figure it out...Why be so defensive if you are innocent?
10/23/2012 10:21:51 PM
animiki says:
So what you're saying is that if the police believe someone is "sketchy", they should have the unrestricted right to arrest that person? To restrict that person's lawful freedom, guaranteed under the Charter? What is the threshold for "sketchy"? What is the test? Can you appeal a "sketchy" tag? What if two cops don't agree on whether someone is "sketchy"? Which one of them gets to make the call?

The police should be able to do this? The police...those employed and sworn to UPHOLD the law?

There's a reason there's a requirement for some reasonable and probable cause before someone is arrested. The judge here ruled that these officers ought to have taken the time to consider if their actions were legal. We WANT to have that sort of check on the state, because the power of the state to abuse is enormous. Their mistake was making the arrest. Their misconduct was doing it even though there was no reasonable purpose for it.
10/24/2012 12:04:08 AM
Sui Generis says:
"would it piss you all off so much if the police arrested someone they believed was the perpetrator and got it wrong."

And what if YOU were that wrongfully arrested person?
10/24/2012 12:24:30 AM
TWM says:
So by your logic then, police should have the right to arrest anyone, anywhere for any crime if the police believe there is suspicious activity. I cannot believe the ideas floating around in some peoples heads, seriously.
10/24/2012 6:45:40 AM
Tannoy says:
Umm.. if the police arrested someone they thought was a sexual predator and that turned out to be very wrong then that would probably destroy the life of whoever they arrested just based on that sort of claim. So no, i'd rather the police have proof before they go around arresting people with false accusations.
10/24/2012 8:42:55 AM
mercy mercy me says:
it is their right to appeal, as it would be ours too, but as the cost would come out of our pocket, so should it come out of the officer's pocket...not the taxpayer's
10/24/2012 1:01:49 AM
Steven says:
Cops PR machine once again working at full tilt on this site.
10/24/2012 3:20:23 AM
Via says:
There would have been only a few reasons to be driving down that lane way. One would be that you live there. Or perhaps you would be visiting friends. Or you are purchasing your drugs or whatever. I choose number three.
10/24/2012 7:06:52 AM
timeforchange says:
Cops just can't say, sorry we arrested the wrong guy. if they had a description of a tall white male, and arrested a short dark skinned male, that is not an error, that is misconduct.

They didn't arrest someone based on specific stuff but based on some generalized being in the area and maybe having drugs. They are not allowed to do that.

Do we really want a police state where they arrest people to see if they have committed a crime. Just think for a moment people before you type.

Are all you supporters okay with being stopped and detained, possibly handcuffed, then searched to see if you have drugs on you because you happened to be in the area or because you knocked on the door of a drug house.

I for one do not want to live in a police state where the cops get to do whatever they want.

It seems to me the whole place needs a good house cleaning. Us taxpayers deserve way better than what we are getting.

And OCTOBER, your last line should scare any sane person. Holy cow
10/24/2012 7:22:21 AM
bgal says:
I agree 100% with October. If I were arrested and questioned, yet innocent, of course I would be upset, but I would also recognize that the police are doing their JOBS. No one was hurt... people make mistakes.
10/24/2012 8:49:41 AM
TWM says:
Your statement lacks reason insomuch as a wrongful arrest can ruin a persons life, their family, their employment and future employment, their friends and peace of mind. You look upon this possible outcome as it were of little interest. In fact, this Officer was NOT doing his job, he was overstepping his boundaries.
10/24/2012 12:43:16 PM
The Badger Mountain Hermit says:
Cops are as addicted to paycheques as much as crackheads are addicted to crack. Why else is this "War" not being fought with Health Care Workers and non-Junk Science?
10/24/2012 9:24:24 AM
mercy mercy me says:
they were found guilty of misconduct by a lawfully appointed judge, they are guilty in the eyes of the law, they broke the law, you can't get much clearer than that, they also have the right to appeal the verdict, but for now, they are GUILTY...every thing else is irrelevant. i gotta give my head a shake , reading October's comment"What if there was a child molester around town...would it piss you all off so much if the police arrested someone they believed was the perpetrator and got it wrong"...really? what if that someone was you, your friend or a family member, you are not insensitive, you are stupid!
10/24/2012 9:52:40 AM
October says:
I guess I am stupid. And of course I would be upset if anyone close to me was arrested guilty or innocent. All I meant by my comment was would you not cover all your bases and question and maybe even arrest people you may suspect rather than let someone guilty slip though your hands? Maybe the police were tired, maybe they did make a mistake but I doubt they were sitting there saying "I'm bored, i know he's innocent but let's just arrest him for fun"...they thought they were doing the right thing at the time...he's not still in jail and he wasn't charged.
10/24/2012 12:04:28 PM
fastball says:
Yeah...from a strictly legal point of view, they didn't have the proper right to go after the guy.
But after the smarmy, greasy smirk on his face that he's been showing on the TV - I'd go after him just on general principles. He could have accepted an apology and moved on. He did all of this because he wanted to bust their chops. He better not really NEED a policeman anytime soon. He could be in for a long wait.
10/24/2012 10:01:39 AM
bshaw16 says:
I find it laughable that by reading one article most of you have presumed the complainant is some upstanding member of the community. These officers had what they believed to be reasonable and probable grounds, as laid out in the Criminal Code of Canada, to make the arrest. You are entitled to your opinions but perhaps you should read other articles on the subject, there you would find out that the complainant had, by his own admission, 66 encounters with police and two arrests. So I doubt very much he has any emotional baggage from the alledged incident. Its easy to sit back and monday morning QB a situation for which you likely have little true understanding of, or training to perform yourself. But it is always easier to hide behind the anonymity of the internet and watch Thunder Bay go to hell in a hand basket then do anything tangible about the problem. TBPS is always hiring, if you feel you can do it better.
10/24/2012 12:57:02 PM
The Badger Mountain Hermit says:
TBPS hiring, as long as you have no prior experience with the system.
10/24/2012 5:28:01 PM
mercy mercy me says:
i apologize to you October for my denigrating remark, you also have every right to say what you feel, although i believe in the 'dubious' due process,i too was affected negatively by the behavior of the victim but that should have no bearing on a lawful outcome, in my mind, the verdict denounces this kind of police action and in a perfect world, protects us all...please accept my heart felt apology
10/24/2012 5:20:42 PM
bshaw16 says:
Regardless of what side of the debate you end up on, respect the due process that these officers are entitled to (including appealling the ruling) as they would have respected the complainants rights to appeal any conviction had charges arose from the incident.
10/24/2012 9:37:00 PM
timeforchange says:
bshaw16---- I don't know what fiction you are reading but the officers did not have grounds to arrest. That was the point. Mere suspiciion is not enough in a democracy. And if someone was arrested 100 times, does that mean the police have the right to arrest for very weak reasons at 101.

You then criticize others for hiding behind the anonymity of the internet while hiding behind it yourself to tell everyone else they are incorrect.

Your last posting allows for people's opinions, fine. The officers have the right to appeal, great. But you should at least allow the possibility that you are wrong instead of coming off as if you are 100% correct.

Taking away someone's liberty, even for a short time is serious. And October, there appears to be nothing anyone can say. To suggest again that you should not have concers if you are innocent shows a high level of naivety.

Ask David Milgard or the many others who were innocent.
10/25/2012 2:41:56 PM
bshaw16 says:
Timeforachange....
First i stated that these officers had what THEY believed were R&PG to make the arrest. As for anonymity of the internet most people know me as BSHAW or Bradshaw (so there is no anonymity intended) if it makes you feel better. I am simply trying to drive the point that these officers were not acting maliciously in this incident as many others have tried to imply. I made reference to previous incidents because one post referenced emotional baggage.
10/25/2012 5:58:27 PM
Comments for this story are semi-moderated. Read our comment guideline.

Add a new comment.
You must log in to add comments.
Create a new account
Forgot password?
Log In
 
 
© 2013 Dougall Media.