HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gawain Coley
Applicant
-and-
Peel Regional Police Services Board
Respondent
decision
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Indexed as: Coley v. Peel Regional Police Services Board
1This is the Decision concerning the Application of Gawain Coley, filed under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The applicant self-identifies as a Black male. On May 5, 2006 he was stopped near Queen and Kennedy in Brampton by two police officers employed by the respondent. He alleges that he was handcuffed and searched and that his vehicle was searched because of the colour of his skin.
3The respondent submits that the applicant was pulled over for failing to display a front licence plate. The officers then spotted signs that the applicant may have been in possession of marijuana, so they arrested him, searched him and the vehicle. There was insufficient evidence to pursue a drug charge, so they issued a caution with respect to the drug possession and issued a ticket for failing to display a front plate.
4I heard the evidence of the applicant, his mother and sister, and the two police officers, Kristine Arnold and Joseph Zucchero. I also heard the evidence of Constable Jean-Luc Perrault, and admitted into evidence the affidavit evidence of Detective Adrian Adore and Staff Sergeant Donald Ross.
The Applicant’s Evidence
5The applicant testified that in the early afternoon of May 5, 2006 he was stopped by a police officer, Jean-Luc Perrault, for failing to display a front licence plate. Officer Perrault gave him a warning. He made arrangements to have the bracket on the licence plate holder fixed and was driving to the body shop with the plate displayed on the dashboard when he was stopped again by Officers Arnold and Zucchero. They approached his vehicle and immediately asked where he was coming from. Officer Arnold noticed a cell phone in his hand and grabbed the phone and proceeded to dismantle it and remove the battery stating that she did not want to be taped.
6The Officers accused him of coming from the Sword and Shield and accused him of being a drug dealer. They told him to get out of the car, Officer Arnold handcuffed him, and they began searching him. They discovered a Bible in his pocket. Officer Zucchero asked him if he was a God-fearing person at least four times to mock his spiritual and religious beliefs.
7At one point a friend of the applicant appeared and was warned away by the applicant. This witness was not called to give evidence. He was repeatedly asked where he was coming from. He was questioned about the $300 cash he held. He told the Officer to call his mother to confirm that he had taken that money out. Officer Arnold did call the applicant’s mother and confirmed the story about the money. She allegedly hung up and said “I see where you get your attitude from”. Officer Arnold forced his arms up causing him pain.
8He was given a ticket for failing to display his licence plate.
Evidence of Arnold and Zucchero
9Officers Arnold and Zucchero testified that they were assigned to the Street Crime Unit on May 5, 2006, and were patrolling the area of Queen and Kennedy, where an entertainment establishment known as the Shield and Sword is located. These premises were frequently the subject of lawless activities.
10As they were passing the parking lot of the Shield and Sword they noticed the applicant’s vehicle was not displaying a front licence plate. When he passed them and they saw it was an Ontario plate, requiring a front plate, they pulled him over. Officer Zucchero approached on the drivers’ side and advised the applicant he had been pulled over because he lacked a front plate. They asked for his identification and insurance and conducted a check. They observed a small cigarillo and a small green plastic bag (they referred to it as a “dime bag” for holding drugs). They could smell marijuana. They determined they had reasonable grounds to arrest the applicant for possession of an illegal substance and proceeded to arrest him. Officer Arnold put handcuffs on him and Officer Zucchero searched his person and then his vehicle. They found no further evidence and exercised their discretion not to charge him with possession. Instead they issued a caution and a ticket for failing to display a front licence plate. After being issued the ticket the applicant tried to get them to retract it, saying he would not file a complaint if they took the ticket back. They refused. They gave their badge numbers to the applicant when requested.
Conclusion on Credibility
11I find that the applicant was not a credible witness. He gave different evidence at different times. I had a transcript of his statement taken at Peel Division on September 6, 2006, and a transcript of the evidence of his trial respecting the ticket on June 4, 2007. At the police investigation he admitted that the officer advised him why he was stopped; at this hearing he denied being so advised. At the police investigation he admitted being questioned about a dime bag and the existence of a plastic bag; at this hearing he denied the existence of a plastic bag. At the police investigation he admitted to occasionally smoking pot; at this hearing he denied smoking marijuana. At the trial he stated that he handed the plate to officer Arnold; at this hearing he stated that officer Zucchero snatched the plate from the dashboard and threw it on the seat. At this hearing he denied threatening to call City TV, a threat noted in the officer’s notebook, but in an earlier statement he admitted trying to contact City TV. He asserted for the first time at this hearing that when he delayed leaving the scene the officer came up to him and threatened to give him a second ticket if he did not leave; that allegation is not found in the initial complaint or in any statement prior to the hearing.
12For these reasons, I find that the applicant was not a credible witness. I prefer the evidence of Officers Arnold and Zucchero, which was corroborated by the notes recorded in their notebooks immediately after the events.
13I conclude that the Officers initially stopped the applicant because he failed to display a front licence plate and that his race played no role in the decision to stop. I note that they were specifically assigned to randomly patrol the streets and investigate potential illegal activity including highway traffic offences.
14I find that the Officers saw a cigarillo and dime bag on the applicant’s lap and smelled marijuana. I find that they had reasonable cause to arrest the applicant for possession of an illegal substance. They proceeded to arrest him, search him, search his vehicle and decided not to proceed with the charge. I find that the sole basis for the arrest and treatment on May 5, 2006 was because of the presence of the cigarillo, dime bag and smell of marijuana and that the treatment was not in any way related to the applicant’s race or colour.
15Accordingly, I find that there is no evidence of race discrimination in these circumstances.
16The Application is dismissed.
Date this 15th day of December 2010.
”signed by”_________
Kaye Joachim
Member.