A Quebec police officer is suspended for four days by the Administrative Ethics Tribunal for having mentioned her duties as a peace officer to a wildlife employee when the latter was giving a statement of offense to his spouse. Words which, by the agent’s own admission, could lead one to believe that she was seeking to have the issuance of the report canceled.
On July 30, 2023, Officer Sarah Martel, of the Quebec City Police Service (SPVQ), was preparing to leave the Forestville Controlled Zone (ZEC) in the company of her spouse and their children.
Around 1:10 p.m., the policewoman’s spouse went to the reception desk to hand in his registration document. He is received by the wildlife protection assistant, Walid Bouguerra. When the latter learns that the family has fished in the territory of the ZEChe notifies the spouse that he will have to check his catch.
Infraction
He agrees and accompanies Mr. Bouguerra to his car. With the spouse’s permission, the employee inspects the contents of his cooler. There he sees a plastic bag containing skinless fish fillets.
The wildlife protection assistant informs the spouse that he or she will have to seize the nets since they are not identifiable, which constitutes an offense.
Open in full screen mode
At the time of the facts, Sarah Martel had 18 years of experience in the police. (Archive photo)
Photo : - / Sylvain Roy Roussel
It is at this moment that Mrs. Martel gets out of the vehicle and begins to question Walid Bouguerra on the nature of the offense alleged against her spouse, the fine to which he is exposed, the applicable law as well as the reasons for the seizure.
The employee provided him with a vague response, specifying neither the article of the law nor the amount of the fine. According to the summary of the facts presented by the Administrative Tribunal of Police Ethics, Mr. Bouguerra thus wishes to prevent the situation, which he considers already tense, from getting worse.
discretionary power
Dissatisfied with his response, the police officer criticizes him for not being able to justify the reasons for his intervention. After a while, she takes a photo of the employee’s designation card in order to complain to her superior.
Ms. Martel, who previously informed her interlocutor that she was a police officer, told him that she also wouldn’t give him a chance if she intercepts him on the road
.
The complainant understands that if the respondent meets him on the road, I will not miss her.
-
To finalize his intervention, Walid Bouguerra decides to call on a more experienced colleague. Sarah Martel chats with the latter. She again refers to her job as a police officer and mentions that, as part of her work, she has discretionary power when she decides whether or not to issue a ticket.
Following the intervention, Walid Bouguerra filed a complaint with the Police Ethics Commissioner against Sarah Martel.
Open in full screen mode
The Administrative Tribunal for Police Ethics rendered its decision regarding Sergeant Sarah Martel on December 12.
Photo: - / Louis Gagné
The agent, who has since been promoted to the rank of sergeant, is cited before the Administrative Tribunal of Police Ethics for three ethical violations:
- having referred to his police function inappropriately;
- having abused his authority by threatening or attempting to intimidate Mr. Bouguerra;
- not having carried out his duties disinterestedly.
Unable to meet her burden of proof with regard to the alleged abuse of authority, the Police Ethics Commissioner requested and obtained the withdrawal of the second count.
During the hearing, Sergeant Martel recognized her ethical responsibility with regard to counts 1 and 3. She said she understood, with hindsight, that it was inappropriate to refer to her duties as a police officer.
She also agrees that she should not have intervened in the complainant’s intervention and that the words she said could suggest that she was trying to influence the latter’s decision to issue a statement of offense to [son conjoint]
we can read in the decision of the Administrative Tribunal of Police Ethics
The prosecutors in the case present a common sanction suggestion, namely, for each of the counts, a suspension of two working days of eight hours without pay.
Mitigating factors
Their recommendation takes into account the following factors: Sergeant Martel’s lack of ethical history, her recognition of the facts and her ethical misconduct as well as the low risk of recidivism that results from this.
In a decision rendered on December 12, the Court, in the presence of administrative judge Edith Crevier, accepted the suggestion of a common sanction and imposed two two-day suspensions on Sarah Martel, without pay, to be served concurrently.
