A judge of the Administrative Tribunal of Police Ethics concluded that the behavior of Sergeant Sébastien Plouffe was “both inexplicable and unjustifiable”. He imposes the sanction which had been recommended jointly by the police officer and the investigator of the Police Ethics Commissioner.
“The facts of this case demonstrate that Sergeant Sébastien Plouffe failed in his task, at all these levels,” writes administrative judge Benoit Mc Mahon, in his decision published on November 4. “His misconduct is disturbing and must be denounced, because it brings discredit to his office and the reputation of his police force.”
According to an agreed statement of facts included in the ruling, the victim’s mother found a piece of her 14-year-old son’s skull while searching for his cellphone where, four days earlier, he had died in a road accident. motorcycle near Saint-Émile-de-Suffolk, in Outaouais.
Sergeant Plouffe then responded to his 911 call and recovered the human remains. But after being criticized by the mother for the police handling of the accident scene, he drove a few kilometers further and threw the piece of skull into a ravine. He also lied later in his daily activity report.
“Such a gesture denotes insensitivity and a lack of empathy,” writes administrative judge Mc Mahon. He seems to have been motivated, at least in part, by revenge. It suggests an absence of professional conscience.”
The police officer’s behavior was discovered a few days later, when the family attempted to retrieve the piece of skull for cremation. Sergeant Plouffe later admitted his actions and returned to the woods to unsuccessfully search for the missing piece of bone. Other police officers were then deployed to the scene to carry out searches, and the fragment was eventually found and sent to the funeral home.
The ethics investigator and the police officer had recommended suspensions without pay of 10 and 15 days for two offenses, to be served simultaneously. The report stated that Sergeant Plouffe admitted wrongdoing, expressed remorse and committed no other ethical infractions during his 19 years of service.
But the mother challenged this sanction on the grounds that it was not severe enough.
Administrative Judge Mc Mahon agreed that the recommended sanction was too lenient, but he explained that the court could only overturn a joint recommendation in cases where a sanction would be unreasonable “to the extent of being contrary to the public interest and likely to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
“The discretion of the Court is therefore restricted,” he wrote before imposing the recommended sanction.
