[unimaginative2]

9 officers in court on corruption, sex assault charges

Four separate police cases to be heard today, day after 2 other officers charged with assault
Nov 16, 2007 04:30 AM
Nick Pron
Courts Bureau



Today will not be the finest day for Toronto's finest as nine police officers appear in court in four cases – with criminal charges ranging from sexual assault to perjury, extortion and corruption.

"The cases before the courts are all allegations. Allow the facts to come out and let due process happen before making any judgments," said Dave Wilson, head of the Toronto Police Association.

He labelled as "coincidence" the fact that the four cases were all taking place on the same day at the Superior Court of Justice on University Ave.

"Yes, it's true, all the cases are on, but what else can I say about it?" said a spokesperson for Canada's largest municipal police force, who declined further comment.

In addition to the nine officers, two other members of the force were each charged yesterday in unrelated cases. Const. Doug Schouten, 41, is a 19-year veteran of the force, while 42-year-old Stanley Dobrzynski is an eight-year civilian employee. Both face assault charges.

In two weeks, a preliminary hearing will continue into corruption charges against two other Toronto police officers, Const. William McCormack and Const. Rick McIntosh, the former head of the police union. One of today's cases is an appeal of an earlier conviction in which Const. Roy Preston was given a 30-day jail sentence after being found guilty of assaulting Said Jama Jama outside a Rexdale coffee shop in August 2003, an incident that was caught on videotape.

A spokesperson for the force said that Preston has been suspended with full pay following his August 2005 conviction for assault, and will remain on salary until the appeal process ends.

In one of the most high profile cases, a pre-trial hearing continues today into extortion and assault charges against six members of an elite drug squad charged in 2004, two of whom have since retired.

The trial for retired Staff Sgt. John Schertzer and Constables Steven Correia, Raymond Pollard, Richard Benoit, Ned Maodus and Joseph Miched, also retired, was to have started in January, but has been delayed at least a month for legal arguments which are covered by a publication ban.

The trial that easily drew the most attention involved Constable Joseph Green, where a packed public gallery listened to allegations that he groped the breasts of an exotic dancer at For Your Eyes Only, and pointed his firearm at her.

In the fourth case, Const. Amar Katoch, 48, has been accused of assaulting a 36-year-old professor at Wilfrid Laurier University during an anti-poverty march in November, 2003.

The 17-year veteran is also charged with perjury and attempting to obstruct justice.

 

[scottycameron]

Testimony against activist incorrect, constable admits
TIMOTHY APPLEBY
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
November 15, 2007 at 4:42 AM EST

A veteran Toronto policeman charged with assault and perjury in connection with an anti-poverty street demonstration four years ago conceded yesterday that testimony he gave at the subsequent trial of an activist accused of attacking police at the rally is contradicted by a videotape and was incorrect.

But as with errors in his police notes - similarly proven wrong by the video footage - the mistakes were made in good faith, Constable Amar Katoch, 48, has told the jury.

The constable is accused of assaulting Alex Levant, now a professor at Waterloo's Wilfrid Laurier University, and of doctoring his police notes in efforts to fabricate evidence.

The fracas arose on Nov. 8, 2003, when the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty organized a rowdy demonstration on Gerrard Street East in support of affordable housing.

Mr. Levant, 36, was among several hundred activists and spectators who milled in front of an abandoned building near the Toronto (Don) Jail. He was arrested by Constable Katoch when a commotion erupted as the crowd tried to storm the building.

One of four people arrested that day, Mr. Levant, 36, was subsequently charged with assaulting Constable Katoch and a second officer, Constable Melanie Mathieu, as she sought to detain one of the female protesters.

Videotape shot by a Ryerson University student in the crowd and shown at both trials, however, has painted an altogether different picture.

At Mr. Levant's trial in September, 2004, Constable Katoch testified that he saw Mr. Levant "yanking [Constable Mathieu] in the shoulder area. ... That's when I grabbed him. ... I jumped right in."

Constable Katoch also told that trial that Mr. Levant had punched him.

But under aggressive questioning yesterday from prosecutor Joan Barrett, who asked the officer sarcastically whether he had "memorized" the transcript of the Levant trial, he agreed he was wrong on both counts.

In testimony last week, Constable Katoch told the jury of eight women and four men he genuinely believed Mr. Levant struck him first and that "I felt I had to punch immediately."

But during two days of cross-examination, he concurred the videotape showed otherwise.

Ms. Barrett asked him to explain an entry in his notes, composed shortly after the rally and written in the present tense, that he arrested Mr. Levant and charged him with two counts of assault after Mr. Levant "turns around and punches me in the chest."

Asked why he wrote that, Constable Katoch replied, "This is an error on my part."

"Those two lines are false, correct?" Ms. Barrett asked.

"Yes," replied the constable, a 17-year veteran of the police force who holds a desk job pending resolution of the criminal charges, which also include attempting to obstruct justice.

Mr. Levant has told Constable Katoch's trial that he was punched for no good reason by the officer. He testified that after being shoved by him, he touched Constable Katoch's arm to ask why, only to be punched, arrested and charged with assault.

Constable Katoch was the first of several defence witnesses to be called this week by his lawyer, Harry Black. Following him in the witness box yesterday was Sergeant Daryle Garry, who also attended the demonstration.

Police had been told to expect trouble and that's what transpired, Sgt. Garry told the court.

"It was chaos," he said of the rally, which comprised between 300 and 400 people.

"It was very anti-police, very anti-establishment. It wasn't a friendly crowd. ... [The] crowd went, like nuts ... I got the sense that we were being overpowered."

While the videotape cleared Mr. Levant of hitting Constable Katoch or Constable Mathieu, Sgt. Garry testified that in an almost simultaneous incident, Constable Mathieu was sworn at and said she had been spat upon by the woman she was trying to arrest.

Media access to the videotape - revealed midway through Mr. Levant's 2004 trial - has so far been denied by Mr. Justice Frank Newbould, presiding over Constable Katoch's trial.

It is not expected to be made available until, at the earliest, the jury retires to deliberate, which will likely be next week.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Star:

Officer loses assault appeal, led away in handcuffs
Toronto cop caught on tape sucker-punching man in 2003 will serve 30-day sentence on weekends
Nov 17, 2007 04:30 AM
Nick Pron
Courts Bureau

A Toronto police officer who was caught on tape sucker-punching a man outside a Rexdale coffee shop was led away in handcuffs when his appeal of the conviction was tossed out of court yesterday.

After listening to the day-long arguments, Justice Nola Garton said the judge who convicted Const. Roy Preston two years ago for the August 2003 assault on Said Jama Jama made the right decision, and ordered the officer to be taken into custody to serve out his 30-day sentence.

It was not a banner day for the Toronto police force as more than one-fifth of the courtrooms at the University Ave. courthouse were hearing cases involving Preston and eight other officers on the force – the charges ranging from sexual assault to corruption.

Standard courthouse procedure calls for convicted criminals to be led away immediately in handcuffs to a holding cell in the basement of the courthouse, and then driven to jail.

But the 39-year-old officer was apparently getting special treatment when he was allowed to hug his wife, talk to other officers and friends, even use the cell phone, presumably to call relatives with the bad news.

The same favour had been granted last year to lawyer Peter Shoniker after he was convicted of money laundering. In both cases, reporters and the public were asked to leave the courtroom.

But yesterday, the media, along with a producer making a documentary on the case, refused to leave and at one point were warned by a courthouse guard they could be arrested for trespassing since the court had ended.

A courthouse official later blamed the delay on taking the officer into custody over confusion about what time he had to report to jail since he's serving his sentence on weekends.

After about a half an hour, Preston emptied his pockets, gave his wallet and money to his wife, kept his cigarettes, was handcuffed behind his back and led off to jail.

"This is as reprehensible a crime in a free and democratic society that one can imagine," prosecutor Ian Scott told Garton in arguing that both his earlier conviction and sentence should be upheld.

After his conviction, Preston had been suspended from work but at full pay under a special order by Chief Bill Blair.

Not only did the six-year veteran use "gratuitous violence," he then tried to frame Jama Jama for assault, lying to a sergeant at the station that the native of Somalia "gave him a shot," said Scott, a supposed punch during the arrest.

But the phantom punch was part of a "cover-up," one of 15 points of "fabricated evidence" attempted by Preston to hide his own crime, Scott told Garton.

Lawyer Alan Gold told the judge that when Preston got to the scene he believed Jama Jama was about to assault a man lying on the ground.

When Jama Jama refused to obey his orders, continued Gold, the officer was justified to punch him in the face "to bring him under control and ensure the officer's safety."

But when a videotape of the incident later surfaced, and was played again yesterday, it clearly showed Preston moving quickly towards Jama Jama as he backed up, giving no resistance to the officer who suddenly gave him a roundhouse left to the jaw.
_______________________________________________

It's really quite distrubing the degree to which those who are supposed to uphold the law turned around and violated it without the slightest bit of reprehension. 30 days? Suspended with full pay AFTER conviction? You must be kidding me.

One shudders to think what would have happened in this (and the previously mentioned cases) if there is no citizen-based reporting of the events. Time and again it has been shown that discipline and ethical standards is severely lacking.

AoD

 

[unimaginative2]

So...suspended? This man is going to be back on the streets with a gun in a few weeks? He's getting paid by the taxpayer while it sits in jail for a violent crime?

It's astonishing how all of these cases are only investigated after a bystander has video evidence. That's why I'm not entirely opposed to CCTV cameras -- to protect citizens from the police as much as the other way round.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

unimaginative:

Except the police have control over the CCTV - I am sure a technical malfunction can be easily arranged when required/convenient. It's hard enough to get the video taken by the bystander at the Vancouver Airport public when it was in RCMP hands...I wouldn't count on anything if the police actually owns the evidence.

Oh and I can't wait to see Denzil Minnan-Wong or Karen Stintz talk about THAT piece of wasteful spending, courtsey of the ABC with the biggest operating budget.

AoD

 

[unimaginative2]

That's an excellent point. They should be controlled by a completely independent agency.

 

[unimaginative2]

Constable visited strip club only to 'show the flag,' he tells court

TIMOTHY APPLEBY

November 17, 2007

A Toronto police constable accused of groping the breasts of a dancer and then brandishing his service revolver during an on-duty visit to a downtown strip joint three years ago denied both charges yesterday, and said he only stopped by the club that evening "to show the flag."

Testifying at his trial on charges of sexual assault, pointing a firearm and careless use of a firearm, Constable Joseph Green, 35, conceded he had "jokingly" remarked on the size of the woman's breasts.

The 14 Division traffic cop, who has secured several commendations during his eight years' service, also told the court he now wishes he had steered clear of For Your Eyes Only, an upscale strip club on King Street West.

But Constable Green said he "absolutely did not" touch the woman, contradicting her trial evidence. Nor did he pull his gun because he had no reason to, he insisted, disputing what three witnesses have told the court. Rather, he said the object in his hand in the dimly lit club was his police radio.

Standing 6 foot 9 and weighing 350 pounds, Constable Green gave his evidence standing up because he was too large to fit into the chair on the witness box. His nickname, he told the court, is "Big Country." And it was his size, he said, that led to the October, 2004, exchange with the petite stripper, a 36-year-old mother of three, whom he had met a couple of times before.

The constable said he dropped by the club near the end of his shift to "show the [police] flag," in hopes of deterring any would-be drinking drivers and ensuring there was no trouble.

In the vestibule, he testified, the scantily clad woman "gave me a hug," then stepped back and remarked: "You're big."

In reply, Constable Green told the court, "I jokingly pointed at her breasts and said, 'Those are big. Did you get those done [enhanced]?' "

"She laughed and said, 'No, no, it's the dress that makes them look bigger,' " according to the constable's testimony. But it was clear she was upset, he added, prompting him to ask the woman: "What's with the attitude?" There the matter ended, he said.

Another club employee, however, has told the trial that Constable Green then pulled his handgun, pointed it toward the woman's feet and told her to "dance."

Not true, said the officer, whose lawyer Gary Clewley has accused the stripper of lying to bolster a $250,000 lawsuit filed against the constable and the Toronto Police Service.

Crown attorney Jamie Klukach suggested yesterday it is Constable Green who is not telling the truth, and that on the night of the incident he never told the police dispatch office he was going to pay the club a visit because "you were trying to cover your tracks."

There was no need to apprise the dispatcher, Constable Green replied, his spouse listening attentively, because his police radio kept him in constant touch.

He also rejected Ms. Klukach's assertion that he enjoyed visiting strip clubs.

But he was plainly no stranger to them. He had visited For Your Eyes Only half a dozen times, he said. And in one off-duty visit, he agreed, he paid $130 to spend half an hour in a private booth with a club employee, Cecile Dupeyron, whom he had helped when she was involved in a traffic accident. He went there to bring her the requisite accident report, he said. In the booth they just chatted, he and Ms. Dupeyron have both told the trial.

And at another time when Constable Green and a fellow off-duty officer visited another strip club, The Paradise, it was not the naked women that drew them, he testified.

"We went there because it has good wings," he said.

The trial will hear closing arguments on Monday.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Police Corruption & Club District problems

It's a little off topic, but permit me some discretion in my opening rant on this forum

It astounds me to hear normally sensible individuals like Adam Vaughan decry the "culture of lawlessness" evidenced by the Peter/Adelaide shootout a few weeks ago, without noting that the Club District's law enforcers are demonstrably untrustworthy.

How is a law-abiding person supposed to behave in such a situation? If you have evidence of criminal activity, how do you get past the high probability that the police will disclose your identity and the fact of your cooperation to the very same criminals?

To top it off, even in the rare cases where incontrovertible evidence of police malfeasance leads to a criminal conviction, the dirty b*stards are given special treatment at every stage of the justice system.

Until someone brings the Blue Wall crashing down, there is little chance that a "culture of lawlessness" can be effectively countered.

/rant

 

[Hydrogen]

It's a little off topic, but permit me some discretion in my opening rant on this forum

It astounds me to hear normally sensible individuals like Adam Vaughan decry the "culture of lawlessness" evidenced by the Peter/Adelaide shootout a few weeks ago, without noting that the Club District's law enforcers are demonstrably untrustworthy.

How is a law-abiding person supposed to behave in such a situation? If you have evidence of criminal activity, how do you get past the high probability that the police will disclose your identity and the fact of your cooperation to the very same criminals?

To top it off, even in the rare cases where incontrovertible evidence of police malfeasance leads to a criminal conviction, the dirty b*stards are given special treatment at every stage of the justice system.

Until someone brings the Blue Wall crashing down, there is little chance that a "culture of lawlessness" can be effectively countered.

/rant

Because of the poor actions of a few, does that mean all police officers are automatically untrustworthy?

As to the law-abiding persons, they don't require the presence of the police in order to be law-abiding. Again, the actions of a few cannot be confused for the the conduct of the majority.

The so-called culture of lawlessness is intended to describe the actions of the few, not the actions of the majority - both within the police force and within society in general.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Star:

Jury acquits officer who punched protester
Unprovoked jab was an honest mistake, constable explained after video surfaced of 2003 demonstration
Nov 24, 2007 04:30 AM
Peter Small
Courts Bureau

A Toronto police officer and his family feel overwhelming relief that a jury has acquitted him of assaulting a demonstrator and concocting a story to cover his tracks, his lawyer says.

"It was a huge feeling of happiness and elation for Amar (Katoch) and his family," defence lawyer Harry Black said yesterday.

The jury of eight women and four men acquitted the 17-year police veteran and father of three of assault, perjury and attempt to obstruct justice Thursday night after deliberating six hours.

There was no dispute that Const. Katoch, 48, punched Alex Levant, 36 – now an instructor at Waterloo's Wilfrid Laurier University – during a noisy protest organized by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty Nov. 8, 2003.

Levant was among hundreds who surrounded an empty house near Gerrard St. E. near Broadview Ave. while several others occupied the building to protest a shortage of affordable housing.

Police were out in force and warned officers of likely violence.

Levant testified the officer shoved him out of the way for no reason.

He said he wanted to know why so he reached out and touched Katoch to get his attention.

That's when he was punched.

Katoch then tackled Levant to the ground, while at least two other officers piled on to place him in handcuffs. Katoch charged the activist with assaulting him and with attempting to obstruct a female officer as she arrested another person.

But the Crown dropped the charges against Levant on the second day of his September 2004 trial after the defence surprised the court by producing a video of the whole incident that, unbeknownst to the officer, was made by a Ryerson University student.

The video shows Levant standing peacefully before he was shoved and punched by the constable.

The tables were turned and the police officer found himself facing charges.

Along with assault, he was accused of doctoring his notes and lying on the stand.

Katoch testified it was an honest case of mistaken identity and the punch was a reasonable response to what he believed was an attack.

"He was acting in the lawful execution of his duties," Black said yesterday.

"This was a very difficult case," added Black, who often clashed with Justice Frank Neubould during the trial.

Black registered 16 objections to the Superior Court judge's address to the jury.

The trial was subject to numerous interruptions as the jury was excused while points of law were argued.

Through it all, watching the proceedings, were colleagues and family members of Katoch.

Crown prosecutor Joan Barrett had no comment on the result. Levant could not be reached.

Valerie Hopper, a spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General, said no decision has been made on whether to appeal Katoch's acquittal.

The Crown has 30 days to decide.
_______________________________________________

Hmm, doctoring notes and lying on the stand are also "honest mistakes"?

AoD

 

[MisterF]

The so-called culture of lawlessness is intended to describe the actions of the few, not the actions of the majority - both within the police force and within society in general.

Look up the word culture in the dictionary. It refers to the majority, not the few. That's just what a term like "culture of lawlessness" implies, and that's the reaction it's meant to invoke. It's over the top to say the least, even for a politician.

 

[Hydrogen]

So there are no minority cultures? That's news to me.




Maybe you shouldn't confuse a dictionary for reality.

 

[MisterF]

So there are no minority cultures? That's news to me.




Maybe you shouldn't confuse a dictionary for reality.

Okay smart guy, I'll humour you. Canadian culture describes the majority of Canadians. Toronto culture describes the majority of Torontonians. Korean-Canadian culture describes the majority of Korean-Canadians.

See what I mean now?

 

[Hydrogen]

Where are you going with this?

Just to remind you, I didn't raise the issue of a "culture of lawlessness," I was commenting on it. I also referred to it as a so called culture of lawlessness because the term was being employed in what I think is a rather vague manner. Did you miss that part?

But going back to my first question: where are you going with this? Are you suggesting that a majority of the police are members of a culture of lawlessness? Do you have any evidence that supports this point of view? Or are you agreeing with Adam Vaughan's view that there is evidence of a culture of lawlessness among patrons of the Entertainment District clubs? I was kind of commenting on those things.

 

[MisterF]

You're reading too much into it. I was just disagreeing with your statement that the culture of lawlessness refers to the few, not the many. "Culture of lawlessness" is a loaded term that's damning on the majority of whatever group it's describing, whether it's police or clubbers or any other group.