APD OFFICER CLEARED IN STRIP SEARCH COMPLAINT

An Abbotsford police officer has been cleared in a misconduct
complaint around a strip search of a suspected drug dealer in 2009.

Both the name of the female officer and complainant were blacked out
of the decision issued by the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

Two Abbotsford Police officers were transporting a prisoner to police
cells the night of Aug. 15, 2009 when he told officers that the woman
driving by in another vehicle was a drug dealer.

The car was stopped in the 32500 block of South Fraser Way and while
officers checked the police computer they stated the complainant was
wiggling around inside the car, as if she were hiding something in
the car or on her person.

The officers, who had determined the woman was awaiting disposition
on two counts each of drug trafficking and breach, also noticed the
smell of burnt marijuana coming from the car.

The vehicle also was subject to a temporary operating permit that was
to expire at midnight, about two hours later, that night.

The complainant's car was searched but no drugs were found. Officers
told her she was to be strip-searched. She was also advised that if
any drugs were found she would be charged with drug possession. At
that point the officer involved offered to search the woman privately
in the washroom of a nearby gas station rather than in police cells.

The offer to conduct the search at the station was made to save the
woman from possibly returning to her car after the operating permit
expired and the costs of towing the vehicle.

Following the search, which uncovered no drugs, the woman was
released without charges and allowed to leave, although she was
issued a citation to have her car inspected.

OPCC adjudicator William Diebolt said his job was to determine
whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to conduct
the strip search.

The case was complicated by the fact that the complaint was made
almost 18 months after the event. What's more, the officers failed to
make notes, including the officer who conducted the search.

However, Diebolt felt the complainant, described by officers as
"lippy and mouthy," had difficulty accurately recalling details of
the event, and made some statements that appeared to be improbable.
Taking that into account, he gave more weight to statements provided
by the officer.

"I am satisfied that the recollection of [the officer] considering
all the evidence in this matter is preferred to that of [the
complainant]," he said.

Information from the other prisoner, the pending drug charges, the
smell of marijuana in the car and the complainant's behaviour were
sufficient justification for the search, Diebolt concluded.

However, he did note the officer failed to provide a Charter warning
to the complainant, about the reasons for her arrest and the right to
a lawyer, and that had drugs been found, their admissibility as
evidence would be questioned.