This complaint arises from an incident that took place on August 29, 2011. On that day a military police member (MP), in uniform, was driving an MP patrol car and twice attended the complainant’s residence while on duty.
On the first occasion, the military police member left a business card with a notation to the complainant to give him a call.
Later that evening the MP member returned to the complainant’s residence, but left without seeing or speaking to him. According to the complainant, during the second visit from the MP, the complainant observed someone looking into his window with a flashlight.
Following the second incident, the complainant contacted the local civilian police, but when the complainant reported observing an MP patrol car in his driveway, he was advised to contact the local MP detachment. The complainant did so and was advised that the subject MP was on patrol duty at that time. The complainant then emailed the subject MP to ask what he wanted. The MP replied that he just wanted to see how the complainant was doing as they were once close friends. Due to the lack of contact between the complainant and the subject member in recent years, the complainant was suspicious about his former friend’s visit and motivation for doing so. The complainant speculated that his former unit may have been trying to find evidence of misconduct in order to adversely affect his grounds for release from the military.
In his August 30, 2011 complaint, the complainant alleged on the part of the subject MP:
- misuse of DND vehicle;
- improper use of MP status;
- intimidation; and
- improper search.
After conducting its examination of the complaint, which involved speaking with the complainant and the subject MP’s superior, the Deputy Commander CF MP Group concluded that the subject member was acting in the capacity of a friend or former friend and, as such, was not performing a
“policing duty or function” at the time of the incident.
The complainant requested a review of his complaint.
Following the review of all materials received from the Deputy Commander, and conducting five witness interviews, the Commission was satisfied that the subject member’s purpose in visiting the complainant’s residence was indeed personal in nature. While engaging in an activity while on duty, in uniform, and while using an MP vehicle, can indicate an official, versus personal, nature to the activity, these elements are not in themselves decisive in determining the proper characterization of MP activity as official or private for the purposes of an NDA Part IV complaint.
In the Commission’s view, private conduct of the nature at issue in this case falls outside of the scope of
“policing duties or functions” within the meaning of NDA subsection 250.18(1), which governs the making of MP conduct complaints. The fact that the subject member sought to conduct private business while on duty is a performance management or disciplinary issue for his chain of command, and not an issue which attracts the oversight mandate of this Commission.
As the Commission has determined that the conduct that is the subject of this complaint did not constitute
“policing duty or function” within the meaning of NDA subsection 250.28(1), the Commission made no findings or recommendations regarding the conduct of the subject member.
- Date modified: