Let us recall that in this ethics case, the facts demonstrate that David Ross obtained personal information using the computer services of the Centre de renseignements policières du Québec (CRPQ). This information was used to harass former partners. His conviction for criminal harassment in July 2021 is also an aggravating factor, according to the TADP.
The court’s decision rendered on June 26 is supported by 20 pages. The wrongful acts spread over a period of almost five years, from June 2013 to March 2018, when the police officer had between 12 and 17 years of experience in law enforcement. During this time, he carried out unjustified searches on around twenty occasions, making several requests each time.
“At the time when Officer Ross conducted the first two searches at the CRPQ in 2013, he had approximately twelve years of experience. Basic training was provided when the computers were installed in the patrol vehicles. The Tribunal has difficulty understanding how an experienced police officer would not have understood or retained these instructions,” the document states.
In his judgment, administrative judge Lysane Cree further considers that “the risk of recidivism is high if Officer Ross returns to employment with access to the CRPQ.”
In September 2021, the Police Department of the City of Trois-Rivières applied dismissal as a disciplinary sanction against its agent. “A grievance concerning the employer’s decision has been filed, so it is possible that he will be reinstated in his functions following the arbitration decision,” indicates the judgment regarding the risk of recidivism presented by David Ross in this subject.
Former member of the Trois-Rivières Police Department, David Ross, will no longer be able to exercise the function of a peace officer subject to the Code, as a result of this judgment by the Administrative Tribunal on Police Ethics which requires his dismissal.
Officer Ross’s attorney instead requested that a 36-month disqualification period be imposed. As mitigating factors, the Court noted that the information obtained was not passed on to a third party and that the officer had no prior ethical record.
However, these factors were no match for the seriousness of the recognized facts.
