OIPRD finds evidence of misconduct by 2 police sergeants after raid at wrong address traumatizes family

Brantford Police Service headquarters on Elgin Street in Brantford, Ont., are seen on Nov. 23, 2012. (CTV Kitchener)

The negligent actions of two Brantford police sergeants “crossed the line from a performance issue to misconduct” when the drug investigation they were overseeing led to armed tactical officers mistakenly raiding the wrong home, traumatizing a young family in the process, according to a report by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

The July 5 report, which was reviewed by CP24.com, outlined the events that transpired on Sept. 8, 2022 in the hours before and after a botched raid was carried out at an apartment on Wellington Street in Brantford but does not make any formal recommendation on whether the officers should face disciplinary action.

The report indicated that a family of four, including a seven-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl, were inside their apartment unit when members of the police service’s Tactical Intelligence Generated Enforcement and Response unit (T.I.G.E.R) broke down their front door.

The officers reportedly came in with their firearms drawn and threw a flash-bang device into the apartment, yelling "search warrant" and "get down.” The officers handcuffed the two adults in the apartment and forced the children out on to the balcony.

Despite repeatedly telling officers that they were law-abiding citizens who had done nothing wrong, the complainant said the officers did not confirm the address or ask for the name of the occupants inside the apartment, according to the OIPRD, the office in charge of investigating public complaints against the police. The complainant also alleged that the officers used excessive force and hurled profanities at her family during the ordeal, claims that could not be substantiated in the report.

The complainant said after several minutes, she overheard one of the officers saying, “You’ve got to be f****** kidding me. Seriously, we got the wrong address?”

At that point, she said, the officers discovered that the warrant was supposed to be executed at an adjacent building with the same unit number. She said they took the handcuffs off and “suddenly became polite.”

UNDERGROUND PARKING LOT CAUSED CONFUSION FOR OFFICERS

The confusion, according to the report, occurred in the underground parking garage that connected two identical apartment buildings at 150 Darling Street and 129 Wellington Street.

“The stairwell that the officers entered led to 129 Wellington Street, as opposed to 150 Darling Street. The inside of the garage was confusing, and there were no signage or marks on the stairwells or doors,” the report, authored by OIPRD director Stephen Leach, read.

“The officers took the first stairwell they observed and went upstairs to the 7th floor. Upon arriving on the 7th floor, they saw the apartment number and assumed they were at the correct address. There was nothing to identify or give them a reason to believe they were at the wrong address.”

While the report said there was no evidence of misconduct on the part of the tactical officers who entered the wrong unit, two sergeants supervising the operation were negligent in their duty.

“As the supervisors of the operation and the investigation, respectively, without any justification or excuse, failed to obtain information about the points of entries and stairwells, which resulted in the police executing the search warrant in the wrong unit,” the report continued.

“While there is no evidence to believe that the error or failure of the officers in this regard was intentional, it was nonetheless significant. It crossed the line from a mere performance measure into misconduct. As a result of the officers’ failures, the complainant… and the complainant’s two children experienced a dangerous situation, which resulted in damage to their property and left them traumatized.”

Leach went on to say that the actions of the supervisors also put six officers of the emergency response team in harm’s way.

“They did not know where the stairwell was leading, how many people were in the unit, or whether they were armed.”'

BRANTFORD POLICE CHIEF TO DECIDE IF DISCIPINARY HEARING NECESSARY

The report noted that the officers opted to proceed with a no-knock raid, also referred to as dynamic entry, due to the “high risk” nature of the investigation. Based on information received by the Toronto Police Service, which had also dealt with the intended target of the Brantford raid, police said they believed there was an “increased likelihood of a weapons present, the potential for destroying evidence, and information that a large dog was inside.”

In the report, the OIPRD urged Brantford police to consider implementing recommendations made by the police watchdog in its November 2022 letter to all Ontario police services regarding the use of the “knock and announce” rule.

Included in the recommendations is making sure police departments have a policy that clearly outlines that “departure from the knock and announce rule only occur in exigent circumstances.”

Leach stated that it is up to Brantford Police Chief Rob Davis to decide whether the misconduct outlined in the OIPRD report is serious enough for a disciplinary hearing to be held.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Brantford Police Service said they cannot “speak to any of the specifics” of the incident as the OIPRD process is “ongoing.”

“As the matter is one of public safety and public interest, the involvement of the OIPRD has provided an independent investigation and review and, regardless of the outcome, there are always opportunities to learn and improve operations and how we serve the public,” the statement read.

“The Brantford police consistently review and revise policies, procedures, and training to align with current case law and best policing practices. The Brantford Police Service would like to assure residents that our members are actively committed to protecting the rights of all persons and strive to demonstrate the highest possible degree of personal and professional integrity in the performance of duties.”