IIO Independence Questioned
Thursday, September 13, 2012 @ 4:00 AM
Command centre set up at entrance to rural property where shooting took place photo-250News
Prince George, B.C.- The Independent Investigations Office has nine investigators in Prince George, examining the police shooting of 40 year old Greg Matters.
Matters was involved in an interaction with members of the RCMP Emergency Response Team on Monday evening, and was shot to death.
The IIO team members have been making full use of resources of the RCMP, including conducting interviews at the North District headquarters, home of the ERT unit which was involved in the incident.
Spokesperson for the IIO, Owen Court, says yes, the IIO investigators are using local resources such as police vehicles, because “as you can appreciate, some communities in B.C. are very remote and there may not be access to rental cars. So are we using local resources? The answer is yes.” Prince George has 6 automobile rental agencies, all are listed in the yellow pages. There are also three cab companies. There are several rental cars parked at the RCMP’s North District lot, however, it is not known if those vehicles have been rented by the IIO.
A command centre has been established at the rural Pineview property where Matters died. The trailer unit arrived from somewhere in the lower mainland yesterday.
The use of local resources also includes the use of the RCMP’s forensics experts. Keep in mind, investigators with the IIO could only get the job if they had not served on a B.C. police force in the past five years, yet, forensics are being done by officers within the same building that was home to the officer involved in the shooting. Court says the IIO uses a “peer review” model, which has local forensic experts gather and process the evidence “under the direction and supervision of an IIO investigator.” Court also says the IIO’s forensic’s expert was one of the first people to arrive in Prince George shortly after midnight, less than 5 hours after the IIO received notice of the shooting.
The Prince George Detachment may be providing resources, but none that would impact the day to day duties and operations of the detachment. It is not known what impact, if any, the use of resources at North District may be having on the operations out of that facility.
When asked why the IIO would use the resources of the North District RCMP in Prince George, if the IIO wants to be at least at arms length of the officers involved? Afterall, there are two RCMP entities in Prince George with the North District and the local detachment, Court seemed surprised to learn there are two RCMP entities in Prince George.
With IIO investigators working so closely with the RCMP, using their experts and in some cases their vehicles, the question of independence in this investigation comes to the forefront.
When the IIO was officially launched on the morning of Monday September 10th, Chief Civilian Director Richard Rosenthal said it was his goal to provide “fair, thorough, competent investigations completed in a timely manner and public transparency through public reporting. It is those goals that I am dedicated to, that everyone in this office is dedicated to”.
Information on the shooting which could be released to the public without impacting the investigation includes whether or not the deceased has been moved, when an autopsy will be scheduled, was the officer involved in the shooting based out of the North District or Prince George offices? All questions which have been posed, but to which the IIO says it does not know, or cannot say.
Comments
They have now lost all credibility. How can they function as an independant unit if they are using police experts when investigating police. Just a huge cost with no benifit, another blunder by our ruling political party.
Do you smell another cover up!some things never change,do they?
To early to tell how this will all turn out. Hopefully we will get an independent investigation, and be apprised of all the results.
If not, then we are seeing another level of the Civil Service being created that will cost us millions.
It might be too earlyt to tell what the result of the investigation will be. However, it is not too early to tell that they are not geared up yet to do independent investigations.
Independent investigations must not only be independent, but they must also look to be independent.
They have failed miserably on the second part!!!!
Incompetence is everywhere these days. Nothing surprising about that, is there?
Definition of Independent: Free from outside control; not depending on another’s authority; self-contained – self-sufficient. I agree 100% with Gus and in this case it goes beyond perception. Going by this article, they are hardly self sufficient or self contained. Therefore, its impossible to be free from outside control (RCMP) or at the very least influence. Very ill thought decisions being made here. (Or so it seems)
So how long before we here details on this shooting? Is this the type of response to be expected with any police involved shooting, or just maybe questionable shootings?
The IIO bunch seem ignorant on how to operate past Hope. Not surprising I guess considering how ignorant those in metro Vancouver are about the rest of the province.
“The IIO bunch seem ignorant on how to operate past Hope”
What do you base this on? Maybe they do not know how to operate anywhere. Do you have any comparables in the GVRD? Greater Victoria?
An incredibly poorly written opinion bit which does little more than speculate – a crap attempt to stir up readers.
Of course the IIO is going to use local resources – often the facilities and equipment needed do not exist outside of local police facilities. Contrary to popular belief, command centers, forensic laboratories and thousands of kilograms of equipment cannot simply be airlifted to Prince George from the GRVD – the IIO must utilize what is available, when it is available.
They are not using police experts. They utilize police resources to gather evidence, conduct interviews and perform their duties. They have their own forensic team, their own interviewers, their own agenda to follow.
The investigative process takes time – this scenario, just as all possible criminal investigations, demands time and care to be explored fully. Posting inaccurate, poorly-investigated and blatantly inflammatory information, as this crap ‘news’ piece has done, accomplishes absolutely nothing.
“An incredibly poorly written opinion bit which does little more than speculate”
If information, not about the case specifics, but about the process in general, and maybe even the difference between the process in Surrey and in Prince George, were made readily available instead of having to pick these people’s noses, then one would not have to speculate.
I mean, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that a new service would be under some scrutiny by the public and the media in its first year of operation.
Don’t be so naive, Balm.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/watchdog-hits-ground-running-with-first-case-on-first-day/article4537874/comments
It seems this is their first case. I do not remember whether this was reported on here.
They said they were ready. Perhaps they were not quite as ready as they thought or should have been with respect to watchdogs watching other watchdogs.
Perhaps I should write a piece on how I believe the IIO is using wizardry to accomplish tasks, then.
If I am not immediately provided with satisfactory explanations, making absurd claims and attempting to undermine the legitimacy of a brand new organization must be justified, correct?
This isn’t reporting, and it isn’t news. It’s garbage.
Here ya go Gus
“Spokesperson for the IIO, Owen Court, says yes, the IIO investigators are using local resources such as police vehicles, because âas you can appreciate, some communities in B.C. are very remote and there may not be access to rental cars. So are we using local resources? The answer is yes.â Prince George has 6 automobile rental agencies, all are listed in the yellow pages. There are also three cab companies. There are several rental cars parked at the RCMPâs North District lot, however, it is not known if those vehicles have been rented by the IIO.”
Heres another one Gus
“Court seemed surprised to learn there are two RCMP entities in Prince George.”
happy now. Implies to me they not knowing much about the sticks.
Balm, everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Here is all I am saying.
1. there has been a long history of the RCMP investigating themselves under questionable circumstance which has a lot of people wondering, including retired RCMP officers.
2. This is a new operation. Of course they will be under scrutiny. Anyone who thinks otherwise is, as I said, naïve in my books.
3. Any new operation, especially one which takes over such a controversial past record, MUST be qualified enough to understand the optics of the situation they find themselves in. Either they handle it the way modern operations handle it, or they handle it in a heavy handed way. They will be judged by actions and actions alone because the general public and the media will not have the money and knowledge to counter them on facts.
4. Finally, seeing RCMP cars around are not absurd claims. Even if they are used to bring the officers who attended the incident out there to question them at the scene in the field context, it becomes suspicious. Hire a bloody van or bus! Optics are everythingâ¦.. any two bit communications person will tell you that!
Gus, your opinion isn’t the one I have a problem with. My issue lies with blatantly biased opinion pieces being portrayed as ‘news’. This article isn’t objective reporting – it’s a crude attempt to slander an entirely new organization. Does the author want a gold star for discovering some sort of imagined corruption issue?
Owen Court’s response to the question regarding use of RCMP resources isn’t even provided – only the suggestion that the question itself left him surprised, or struck dumb somehow. I am quite sure he had an entirely appropriate response to the query – but of course, publishing such would not support the purpose of the article, which was to undermine and discredit the IIO as quickly as possible.
Optics are everything – and the publication of this piece as news, rather than as the uneducated and poorly researched opinion piece that it is, makes me doubt the quality of the entire 250 News organization.
I have to agree with Balm here, this story is closer to the National Inquirer than the National Post.
Opinion 250 should at least put a name to this article, hiding behind 250 News is bunk. Its more of an opinion piece than a news article.
Well said balm.
I agree with Balm, Owen court and the IIO seem to be doing a great job to me.
Once again, more crap from Opinion 250, this site more closely resembles graffiti than news.
This site is a cancer on our community.
I agree with Balm, Owen court and the IIO seem to be doing a great job to me.
Once again, more crap from Opinion 250, this site more closely resembles graffiti than news.
This site is a cancer on our community.
Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out.
I agree with Balm as well. The police cars on scene are likely there to keep people out of the scene. You can’t just hire a private security company to secure this type of scene. I am only guessing that there are members of the IIO on scene 24hrs a day to eliminate the suspicion that any police officer tampered with evidence.
“This site is a cancer on our community” .. why do you come here to read it then?
I have to say that this is one of the most poorly researched articles i’ve ever seen on this site.
If one takes 5 minutes to breeze through the MOU signed between BC police forces and the IIO, it clearly shows that IIO investigators have the authority to take command of basically any police resources they see fit. I.E. the IIO lead forensic investigator will use and oversee any RCMP or other police forces forensic workers they see fit.
The IIO can also command police resources for the use of witness interviews, evidence gathering ( including seizure of police weapons , cars etc. ) and pretty much every thing else . Even media releases. The one thing the IIO cannot do is move or remove a body without the permission of the coroner.
I’m all for scrutiny of govt offices but lets have some actual research before you rush out to try and create a “news” story.
Jaws …. please read this statement and let us stay focused on it for while rather than obfuscating the issue:
“Spokesperson for the IIO, Owen Court, says yes, the IIO investigators are using local resources such as police vehicles, because âas you can appreciate, some communities in B.C. are very remote and there may not be access to rental cars. So are we using local resources? The answer is yes.â
So how smart of a spokesperson do you think this fellow Owen Court is based on those âresearchedâ words?
Why does he speak about hypothetical communities that MAY BE REMOTE while he is standing in Prince George which has many of the urban amenities including an airport which is one hour flight time away from Vancouver? In fact, specific to cars, there are several car rental agencies in town. Why did he utter the words THERE MAY NOT BE ACCESS TO RENTAL CARS? I mean, I am assuming he is an employee of an investigative unit.
Not a good member of an investigative unit, is he? I know. I know. He is not an investigator, he is a communicator.
Well, in this case he communicated his ignorance. Not a good promoter of a quality team, is he? Does he know anything about his province or has he been living under a rock in Burnaby all his life?
I will excuse this representation because it is their first time out. BUT, it is not exactly a good start.
—————————————
It does not really matter what they can take charge of does it? What matters is what should they take charge of so that there is neither a perceived conflict or actual conflict?
What are the protocols or “standard operating procedures” for using RCMP facilities and experts when investigating RCMP incidents? Remember, they are the IIO for all police forces in BC. The RCMP is not the only police force in the province with expert investigators and lab techs. Whether to use one resource or another resource should not be primarily a matter of cost, it should be primarily a matter of incident scene security and secure chain of custody of evidence.
Secure chain of custody …..
“hey, constable, can you please take this evidence box and bring it to the evidence lock up in the RCMP offices? “
“sure, I’ll bring it there on my way to lunch”
Is that sort of thing going on? Who knows. If asked, what would the response be? Do we care? Is that shoddy journalism?
Remember, this is the first time we have had an IIO in this province.
Agree! More O250 garbage! If the IIO is smart they won’t give anything to the media. Make the media do some research, network and work with the IIO and actually report the facts. Instead the media can make up any garbage they want knowing they will all get the same information down the road in a press release. No need to be truthful or accurate in the meantime with their desire to keep the story in the news. How ironic, wasn’t the media complaining that the RCMP weren’t giving them truthful and accurate information?
If you read the other “real” news outlets, Owen Court is doing a fantastic job. I agree with the mandate of the IIO.
If they went out and bought themselves brand new equipment gus would criticize them for spending too much money.
You cant win on this web site, never a nice word to be said about anyone.
Cheers to the IIO and Owen Court for their fast response in a noble mission.
People are complaining because they are using local resources. I realize that the heart of the issue is a perceived conflict of interest. But, nevertheless, these same folks, if the IIO had brought in all their own people and equipment and vehicles, would then complain that this was a huge waste of money because there were resources locally the IIO could have made use of.
This new team is hardly out of the gate and they’re already being slammed by the armchair specialists. These organizations just can’t win, no matter what they do. And some folks (there seem to be a lot of them regularly posting on this website), seem to always see some kind of conspiracy and/or cover-up behind everything.
I know there are lemmings on here who do not believe in such things as best practices, which presumes knowing what practices in other jurisdiction are, but I am one of what I have seen to be the majority who are prepared to learn from others rather than shutting themselves off from the rest of the world.
This is how Denver, Colorado, does it. They adhere to one key principle â at the conclusion, the investigative file is open to the public for in-person review.
http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/PS-2011%20Protocol.pdf
â¢Is ours open to public review after the investigation is over?
â¢What is our protocol?
â¢Why would our protocol not be made available?
â¢Are we in competition with anyone?
â¢Does knowing the protocol give anyone who would try to sabotage it any advantage?
Let us get some information from this IIO office, information we should have been getting before they opened their doors.
From the link:
âFor more than a quarter century, Denver has had THE MOST OPEN OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING PROTOCOL IN THE COUNTRY. The protocol is designed to insure that a professional, thorough, impartial, and verifiable investigation is conducted and that IT CAN BE INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED BY LATER REVIEW. The fact that THE INVESTIGATIVE FILE IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR IN-PERSON REVIEW AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION and review process, permits not only formal legal reviews to occur, but ALSO ALLOWS FOR ANY CITIZEN TO REVIEW THE CASE. This, perhaps more than any other single factor, helps to insure that the best possible investigation is conducted by all involved parties.â
grammaw wrote: “there seem to be a lot of them regularly posting on this website”
So if you think that, you might just be a regular lurker then. ;-)
BTW, why would it matter if people are posting regularly, irregularly, once, never?
Too many people on here do not seem to be able to stick to the topic, perceived or actual conflict of interest. That is why the IIO was set up and that is the key determinant of whether they can carry out their mandate.
“there were resources locally the IIO could have made use of”
Other than police cars and some staff, what other resources do we have available?
Do we have any local forensics labs? Where are they? What is their capability? If they are used, what is the protocol for using them in such a case?
We must not forget, it is the PUBLIC that needs confirmation that a proper process is in place. THAT lies at the very heart of the creation of the IIO, in case some forget that.
I don’t have a problem with Opinion 250. I always get my news from it. In my opinion the Citizen is one sided in the news category. So I read Opinion 250 articles are pro and con on various subjects, but when a subject angers a person that person is more apt to write his opinion on it. Seldom does one write on things that pleases him/her. So I find opinion 250 very informative and entertaining. One thing that pleased me was how to seperate the yoke from the egg…You use the suction of a compressed plastic coke bottle by placing on the yolk and release the bottle so as to let the suction of the bottle to suck up the yolk…don’t let the bottle drop.
For those who may not know where the RCMP crime detection labs are (such as me)
Rockcliffe
Sackville
Vancouver
Edmonton
Montreal
The following will b shut down by 2014
Regina
Winnipeg
Halifax
The saving to the RCMP will apparently be $3 million per year.
The RCMP is contracting some of their work out. Since they are doing that, they might want to consider using contract labs for such work as officer shootings and free up their in house lab time for non-conflict of interest cases.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09/13/bc-man-shot-by-police-ptsd.html?cmp=rss
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09/11/bc-prince-george-police-shooting.html
Gus, as you highlighted in your posting of the Denver information, only at the conclusion of the investigation, not before, all information is made public.
The IIO is following the same principle – from their own media release this morning:
“Once the IIO investigation is completed, the Chief Civilian Director will determine if he believes an offence may have taken place. If yes, he will refer the case to Crown counsel. If there is no report made to Crown counsel, the Chief Civilian Director will release a public report relating to the IIO investigation and his findings. The intent behind releasing this type of public report is that any reasonable member of the public reading the report would understand why the Chief Civilian Director did not make a report to Crown counsel.”
Public report, fully viewable, available at the conclusion of the investigation. Sounds quite reasonable to me.
And one more thing – Denver’s open investigative policy? Richard Rosenthal was Denver’s Independent Monitor prior to working for the IIO here in BC. What a spooky coincidence ;)
Thanks for the response, Balm. Of course I understand the necessity for confidence at this early stage.
However, the point being made by the position of Denver’s protocol is that the invetigation team knows that at the conclusion of the process, the information will be made public.
Based on the statement made, the Chief Civilian Director will release A PUBLIC REPORT relating to the IIO investigation and his findings.
To me that sounds quite different from the Denver situation. As it states in the Denver information sheet, âthe fact that the INVESTIGATEIVE FILE IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC (to me that is different from releasing a PUBLIC REPORT) for in-person review at the conclusion of the investigation and review process, permits not only formal legal reviews to occur, but also allows for any citizen to review the case. This, perhaps more than any other single factor, helps to insure that the best possible investigation is conducted by all involved parties.â
So if someone with authority could confirm publicly that we are not playing âobfuscate the storyâ here and that the BC version means the same thing as the Denver version, then I will accept that. But, so far, that is not what I am hearing.
I wonder how well this has been thought through before they opened their doors for business. They should have a web page to point people to how the IIO will work and have FAQâs there for people interested in such cornerstones of our democracy.
Comments for this article are closed.