Use of Force

• During a routine traffic check, the driver of a stopped vehicle became uncooperative and aggressive toward an RCMP officer. The driver was consequently placed under arrest. While being booked in at the detachment, the man continued to be insulting and uncooperative. When the man refused to have his photograph taken, the officer applied the carotid control technique.

• In a second very similar case, a man who had been stopped during a traffic violation was placed under arrest and transported to the detachment. This man was uncooperative and verbally abusive to the arresting officer. When the man failed to provide his personal effects as requested at the book-in counter, the arresting officer administered either a chokehold or the carotid control technique to render the man compliant.

The chokehold involves the officer placing an arm around the subject's neck from behind and applying pressure to the front of the throat. The pressure cuts off the supply of air to the lungs by compressing the windpipe. The use of the chokehold by RCMP officers was banned in 1979. By comparison, the carotid control technique is one in which the officer places an arm around a subject's neck from behind. The elbow forms a "V" directly in front of the subject's chin. The other arm is placed behind the subject's head to control and prevent the head from turning. Pressure is applied with equal force to both sides of the neck, reducing the supply of blood through the carotid arteries, ultimately resulting in the subject's loss of consciousness. The RCMP's national operational policy on the use of the carotid control hold recognizes the technique as being potentially lethal and thus stipulates that the technique may be used only defensively when the life of a member or other person is at stake.

In both of these cases, the CPC found that the officers' use of the chokehold and/or the carotid hold in the circumstances contravened the national policy and constituted an excessive use of force. The Commissioner of the RCMP concurred with the CPC's findings in both cases and promised that appropriate measures would be taken to ensure that the use of force on uncooperative prisoners would comply with the law and policy.

• A man was arrested for assault and transported to the local RCMP detachment. When one of the arresting officers proceeded to search the man during the booking-in procedure, a physical altercation ensued, ending with the officer spraying the man with pepper spray. The man alleged that he was assaulted by the officer and wanted the incident investigated by the CPC with a view to laying criminal charges.

The question of whether the officer committed an assault is for the courts to determine. The CPC's role was to review the complaint and make a finding as to whether the officer's actions constituted an improper use of force. The CPC found that the man was uncooperative when he was arrested and continued to be so after arriving at the detachment. In particular, the man repeatedly raised his right hand toward the officer in an aggressive and threatening manner. The man was warned to stop the threatening hand gestures or he would be pepper sprayed, but he continued nonetheless. The Criminal Code empowers peace officers to use no more force than is necessary in the enforcement and administration of the law. The RCMP officer was acting within the lawful course of his duties when he arrested the man. Given that the man continually and increasingly used threatening and aggressive behaviour, the CPC found that the officer's use of pepper spray to control his behaviour was justified.