|
February 2003
Extra-Jurisdictional Policing: A National Dilemma
by Inspector Gord Schumacher L.L.B., Winnipeg Police Service
Most police officers falling within the baby boom
era can recall the weekday sightings of the Dukes of Hazard speeding
down county roads in General Lee, being closely followed by the
Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane, or on rare occasions, by Boss Hogg
himself. Watching the Dukes drive their speedster over creeks
and through trees was fun to imagine but impossible to believe.
One thing however, inevitable in most episodes, was that the escape
would many times be accomplished by crossing the county line;
the veritable safe haven where the sheriff lost his authority
to continue. Darn those Dukes.
Though the Dukes narrow escapes and accomplishments seemed fantastical,
one aspect with a disturbing air of reality is the difficulties
experienced by the sheriff with jurisdictional boundaries. The
following discussion examines the jurisdictional difficulties
being experienced police officers in Canada and the progress that
will hopefully see police officers with the ability to cross-jurisdictional
boundaries without losing their legislated authority.
In Canada, approximately seventy-one percent of all appointed
police officers are sworn in under local, municipal or regional
Police Services established pursuant to Provincial Acts1.
These "provincially appointed" officers are restricted
to the jurisdiction of the province appointing them; at no time
can they exceed provincial boundaries while maintaining their
power as a police officer2.
This restriction has created difficulty in effectively enforcing
crimes that span provincial boundaries, specifically with regard
to investigations of organized crime and drug related offenses.
In many cases police members encounter situations where an investigation
takes them outside of their jurisdictional area. This is most
prevalent when assisting extra-provincial police agencies or conducting
surveillance / investigations pertaining to Outlaw Motorcycle
Gangs.
The Canadian Law Enforcement community has established a National
Strategy to Combat Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. This strategy includes
the need for police agencies to work in concert. It is imperative
that police agencies become organized and that the Federal and
Provincial Governments support initiatives of the National Strategy
by amending the Criminal Code or otherwise providing/facilitating
a unilateral provincial solution, to allow for the authorized
extra-provincial movement of police officers who are involved
in criminal investigations.
At this stage in Canadian history, the disheartening realization
is that Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs and Organized Crime Groups are
organized; the police are trying to be. This is not to say that
intelligence information isn't being communicated by Police across
the country; on the contrary, an intelligence network has been
established for some time and appears to operating efficiently.
The difficulty arises most prominently when extra-jurisdictional
resources are required to assist local authorities. An example
of this type of situation arose in 1997 in the City of Red Deer,
Alberta, and has served as the catalyst for discussions with government
since that time. In Red Deer, a City of 60,000 people, hundreds
of motorcycle gang members from Canada and the United States converged
to celebrate the take over of the Grim Reapers Motorcycle Gang
by the Hells Angels. It was only with the help of police officers
from across Canada that the situation was contained and controlled.
Subsequent examination of the processes followed in Red Deer identified
that many police officers who attended from outside Alberta were
doing so without peace officer status, which meant they were without
Criminal Code protections established for police officers including
the right to carry a firearm.
In past years, extra-provincially appointed police officers simply
attended these types of gatherings at the request of the local
police agency. They did so in ignorance of liability concerns
or in disregard of them, either way it was a dangerous practice
that in most cases has been stopped. Currently the only method
available to allow extra-provincial travel and assistance is to
have members sworn in as "Special Constables" in the
province of destination, as well as each province in between3.
This procedure is cumbersome, time consuming and at times, ineffective.
The alternative is to assign extra-provincial police officers
to roles of observer or resource person, leaving them without
police powers of arrest or the ability to carry a firearm. This
is not acceptable.
Since the Red Deer experience, Police Agencies across the country
have examined their everyday practices and have realized the impact
of the lack of protections and authority when providing assistance
or following up on investigations that are outside of their appointed
jurisdiction. Even the simplest scenarios such as an Ottawa-Carlton
Police officer crossing the bridge into Quebec have become severely
problematic.
There has been some suggestion that section two of the Criminal
Code might allow for an extension of police power into another
province. While there is no definitive, the case of Nolan v. The
Queen is instructive, though seemingly unsupportive. The Chief
Justice stated:
On a level of principle, it is important to remember that the
definition of 'peace officer' in s.2 of the Criminal Code is
not designed to create a police force. It simply provides that
certain persons who derive their authority from other sources
will be treated as 'peace officers' as well enabling them to
enforce the Criminal Code within the scope of their preexisting
authority, and to benefit from certain protections granted only
to "peace officers.4"
There are also a number of lower court decisions and articles
which acknowledge that peace officer status ends when the officer
is outside of the appointing jurisdiction5.
Two exemptions have been identified in which police officers maintain
their status when crossing jurisdictional boundaries: 1) hot pursuit
(R v. Roberge)6 and 2) when
there is a "sufficient nexus" between activity outside
their jurisdiction and their police duties within it (Nolan, Stewart
ibid.). Neither of these exemptions addresses a sustained extra-provincial
authorization.
While the Criminal Code does not provide clear direction, it
does appear that extra-provincial competence of peace officers,
has at least in part been contemplated. CCC section 513 identifies
that warrants specific to Part XVI, will be directed to a peace
officer within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing authority.
Section 514 then goes on to clarify that the warrant could be
executed by a peace officer to whom it was directed "whether
or not the place in which the warrant is to be executed is within
the territory for which the person is a peace officer"7.
In other words, the Criminal Code is purporting to allow an
individual, who is not a police officer within the defined area,
to attend an outside jurisdiction and execute a warrant as if
he was a peace officer within the jurisdiction of arrest8.
Though providing a glimmer of hope for a federal solution, this
section is likely unconstitutional, not in the Charter sense but
based on original Constitutional principles, and was likely not
clearly thought out by the original drafters9.
While a 1998 Resolution submitted by the Canadian Association
of Chief's of Police supported a Criminal Code solution10,
and the Criminal Code itself hints at a possible codified answer,
discussion between the Federal Department of Justice, the Ministry
of the Solicitor General and various Provincial Justice Departments
indicate that a provincial approach may be more effective and
appropriate; the emerging picture may see each province amend
local legislation with corresponding federal changes that allow
for extra-provincial travel of a police officer and the maintenance
of peace officer powers and protections. While this process may
appear cumbersome, even untenable given the myriad of required
legislative changes and Agreements, the Constitutional restraints
upon Federal authority over provincial policing may make this
solution reasonable.
Though reasonable as a base approach, the mechanics of actually
putting the model in place may be difficult given discrepancies,
even within the police community, as to how the process should
work. Should extra-provincial authority be valid in all cases
when a police officer crosses a provincial boundary or should
authority be specific to certain investigations? Must there be
a notification to, or required approval from the police of jurisdiction
and could they refuse to allow the police officer within their
jurisdiction? Are time limits appropriate? What should the reporting
structure look like?
Many questions will emerge from all sides once a framework has
been established. It will be extremely important for all affected
to be cognizant of the ultimate goal and facilitate less than
complicated solutions.
Civil Liability and Discipline
Concern has been expressed regarding how civil liability and
discipline processes attach to police officers leaving their authorized
area. One way in which these concerns can be addressed is with
an acknowledgement of status obtained when the police officer
enters the outside jurisdiction. If a police officer, with authorization
from their originating agency, enters another jurisdictional area,
he/she does so with the knowledge that their authority, responsibility,
and accountability will be mandated under the legislation applicable
within the specific area they are entering. As an example, if
a Winnipeg Police Officer enters Ontario, that Officer would be
subject to those protections legally available to police officers
in Ontario. The Winnipeg Police Service would provide any additional
protection against both civil and criminal liability, as negotiated
within the terms of their Collective Agreement and within the
parameters of the Provincial Law Enforcement Review Act and other
applicable legislation.
This suggestion may not be as simple as it appears as conflict
and challenge can be anticipated from Police Associations and
local discipline regimes regarding jurisdiction, competence and
cost. The answer may lie in a duel track approach that would see
the host jurisdiction maintaining primary jurisdiction with a
defined role being maintained within the appointing area.
The Canadian Police community recognizes the mobility of Organized
Crime and the escalating problems associated with the boundaries
imposed on provincially appointed police officers. Since 1997,
the Hells Angels have effortlessly crossed provincial boundaries
growing from fifteen chapters in four provinces to thirty-five
chapters in eight provinces and their number will continue to
grow along with the carnage which includes 163 murders, 181 attempt
murders, 18 missing OMG members, 29 innocent bystanders being
injured or killed and millions of dollars in property damage due
to bombings and arson11.
In keeping with the National Strategy to Combat Outlaw Motorcycle
Gangs, and the desire to keep Canadians safe from Organized Crime,
it is imperative that the Federal and Provincial Governments work
together to provide for multi-jurisdictional peace officer status.
This status must carry all the protection and authorization as
appointed by the rendering province, including the right to carry
a firearm.
These comments do not advocate the abolition of provincially
appointed police officers, nor the erosion of powers designated
under the Constitution. The intent is only to identify some of
the current issues being discussed and to point out that police
officers across Canada are in need of Federal and Provincial support
to facilitate a fluidity of law enforcement in order to better
protect the citizens of Canada.
Footnotes
1Law Reform Commission of Canada, Legal Status
of the Police by Philip C. Stenning (Montreal, Que.: Supply &
Services Canada, 1982).
2 This excludes appointments by M.O.U. with the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police.
3 The process of obtaining Special Constable status is different
in each province, for example in Saskatchewan the process is expedited
by simply sending a letter to the Provincial Firearms Officer,
while Ontario has more rigid controls that can take up to six
months for authorization.
4 41 D.L.R. (4th) 295
5 R v. Schroeder 22 MVR. (2d) 307, R. v. Stewart 66 C.CC. (2d)
481, R v. Soucy 23 C.C.C. (2d) 561, R v. Arsenault 55 C.C.C. (2d)
39, P. Ceyssens, "Legal Aspects of Policing" (Toronto:
Earlscourt,1994) at 1.5
6 [1983] 1 S.C.R. at 332
7 CCC section 514.
8 This potentially could include situations involving high-risk
takedowns or armed entry into a building. See also CCC section
528(2).
9 Comments influenced through discussion with Superintendent Tom
Grue from the Edmonton Police Service.
10 The CACP Resolution called for the Federal Government to amend
sec. 2 of the CCC to provide protection for police officer who
leave their jurisdiction in the furtherance of a boni fide police
investigation.
11 Statistics obtained through the WPS OMGU and are cumulative
beginning July 1994
|