Opening comments: More at the end.
"the force refused to bring discipline proceedings against the officers", it comes as no surprise to me that the police will not discipline one of their own or to many other intelligent and knowledgeable persons. The police care too much about each other and not enough about us, the law or Canadian Democracy, apparently! This is an example of how the Toronto police have to be ORDERED to do the right thing, otherwise they would not .
"may have committed misconduct of a serious nature" & "in that he acted in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force.", was what the report said. As far as I am concerned, the cop who terrorized Mr. Milton was just carrying out his Orders and by no means not the only member of the Toronto police who has brought "discredit upon the reputation of the police force" and should be held accountable.
To me, when the police did as they did in this case it screams cover-up!
Mr. Milton got $11,000 for the hell the Toronto police put him through and all because he said no to an unlawful search. Can you imagine if all 20 people who were arrest like him sued? $220,000 and for what? If this keeps up, will people be going to OCAP protests hoping to win the Fascist Pig Lotto at taxpayers expense?
The devil is in the details and this is my opinion of this legal precedence. The police do not want any court case where they would have to reveal the details of their operatio to do mass unlawful searches, as it could result in a ruling that would end their power trip. By making the details public they would strongly criticized and worse of all the government would not be able to ignore the issue and have to take action to end it, as the Charter Rights are Canada Rights that trump all Ontario laws or police practices.
So it was nudge, nudge - wink, wink, so no more!
Next is the pay out. Held out to just before the trial and settled out of court. By not going to court and making any effort to defend their actions, this tells me the police know they are guilty as sin and would lose! Then there is the matter of the non-disclosure and there not being none in this case. It is common practice for the police require non-disclosure of deals they make to settle case but in this case Mr. Milton, was not going to agree to one. As the police were, as the saying goes, over a barrow, Mr. Milton gets the $11,000 and the freedom to tell the world about it! Really sounds to me that the police would do just about any thing to keep his case from going to court.
Interesting how the Toronto police say their unlawful actions were justified based on past actions by OCAP. In the process they attacked non-OCAP members and those, like myself who would have never been part of an past OCAP action. The police go on to say the protest was illegal - well most are and only in a police state are all demonstrations approved and controlled by the government.
But think of the logic being used by the police, they appear to say that those who are protesting the brutally, oppression and lose of Democratic freedoms from a certain government, should seek its permission to protest its efforts to silence them? Is not one of the key indicators of a police state or dictatorship, there laws that make protesting the government illegal or stopping them in one way or another?
I have been told that Chief Fantino sent a letter to OCAP saying not to hold a demonstration and that was it. Nothing about working with taxpayers (and OCAP supports/members are in one way or another, as we all are), to draft more acceptable plan for a demonstration, which is our Democratic right by way of the highest law of the land - just NO!
Back up to;
T-Star Aug. 1 2003 - A16 - By HAROLD LEVY STAFF REPORTER
Police told to investigate
complaint from activist
Writer says he was strip-searched
Anti-poverty demo in Toronto in 2001
The Toronto Police Service has been ordered to conduct an internal disciplinary hearing into the complaint of a freelance writer who says he was illegally stopped, arrested and stripsearched when he tried to cover an anti-poverty demonstration.
The decision was outlined in a letter from the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services last week
John Milton, a self-described "social activists," set out to report the demonstration, held at Nathan Phillips Square on Oct. 16, 2001, for View magazine, a labour-oriented weekly tabloid published out of his hometown of Hamilton.
By the end of the day, he claims, he had been arrested for breach of the peace, searched without his consent, driven around downtown in a detention van for five hours, taken to a police station, held in a cell and strip-searched, before being released without criniinal charges more than 15 hours later.
Milton responded by suing the Toronto force for false search, false arrest, false imprisonment and violation of his constitutional rights.
In its statement of defence denying the allegations, the force also said that its officers' actions were justified because the demonstration was organized by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, a group "known by police to have a history of staging disorderly and sometimes violent demonstrations' "
"The Oct. 16 demonstration was illegal and was intended to intimidate and interfere with the public's right to use and access public highways'" the document said.
Brian Shiller, Milton's lawyer, said in an interview that the force settled with Milton out of court in April for $10,000 plus legal costs - the highest amount that can be awarded in small. claims court. The force was not admitting liability by reaching a settlement.
In his statement of claim, Milton alleged that, as he was walking toward the square, a police officer insisted on searching his knapsack because everyone in the area was being searched, and that when he refused he was arrested, photographed, handcuffed behind the back and placed in the van, and his camera was seized.
He also alleged that, after being hooked at 51 Division downtown, he was ordered by an officer "to assume various poses," including being required to turn his back to the officer. bend over at the waist and spread his buttocks with his hands.
Milton said in an interview that after the force refused to bring discipline proceedings against the officers he beheved had violated his rights, he turned to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, a watchdog body, for help.
Earlier this week Milton received a five-page decision from the commission based on his complaint, saying there is sufficient evidence that Sergeant John Babiar may have committed misconduct of a serious nature under the Police Services Act, "in that he acted in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force."
Milton also complained to the commission that he was not allowed to talk to a lawyer before being released.
The commission found that Staff Sergeant Sharon Davis may have committed "misconduct of a serious nature," because "as the officer in charge of the cells for 51 Division from 2 pm. to 10 p.m., it was her responsibility to ensure that your fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were safeguarded."
Davis had no comment, and Babiar said he preferred not to comment because he had not yet received the decision.
[COMMENTS BY DON B. - ]