If a police officer's primary goal is to get the maximum number of overtime hours, arranging to have someone charged, whom they know isn't guilty, is the best way to do it, because it guarantees a court appearance for the arresting officer, unless the accused pleads guilty to something they didn't do. Gross numbers of arrests are also a positive factor in internal promotions. Because those at the top of the seniority list get first cracks at available overtime, for a 4th class constable, new to the job, court appearances are the only way they'll get overtime hours.
I can confirm that this is true, from personal experience.
First, there are certain cops who think that their job is to process requests for arrest, as if they were a dog catcher:
Someone calls 911, the call is directed to their car.
One of the first questions the cop asks the complainant is "Do you want to press charges?". If the complainant says "Yes", the cop 'takes his case', and begins to gather evidence against the accused.
The police swear an oath when they receive their badge. Among the things they promise to do are to act impartially and to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Some of them forget that as soon as they get their badge, or they're taught to forget that by their training officers.
In my personal experience, a former neighbour assaulted me, then called the police to say that I had assaulted him. The complainant sucker-slapped me while I was holding on to his shirt, breaking my glasses. His shirt was ripped when he tried to run away while I was still holding his shirt.
These are some of the procedural errors committed by 'the team':
There was about half an hour between when the incident occurred, and when the 911 call was made. The complainant, who is schizophrenic, took his medications during that interval. Rather than ask him why he had waited so long to call, two different officers falsified the time of the incident in typed paperwork, but the original time as reported by the complainant was in their hand written notes.
The 'witness' was not interviewed until the next day, and only after I had been arrested and charged.
While the complainant's statement was being taken, the witness was in an adjoining room, where he could hear all of the arresting officer's questions, and the complainant's answers. The next day, the arresting officer asked him all of the same questions, in the same sequence, and he gave identical answers. The complainant and witness were roommates.
In the evidence disclosure, there were photographs of a different shirt, which had not been ripped. A triangle of cloth had quite clearly been cut with scissors from the neck area.
When the arresting officer spoke with me, he omitted the portion of my story where I said that the complainant had struck me and broken my glasses. I was wearing the glasses when I spoke to him, and that information was in his partner's notes.
There was literally no evidence against me in the evidence disclosure, but on the trial date, (I had waived pretrial and entered a not guilty plea at arraignment), the Crown flipped his fingers through the disclosure, and said "Looks like we've got enough to convict", before offering me the option of entering a guilty plea. Half way through my cross examination of the first witness, (the witness, who saw none of the incident), the Crown offered to drop the charges, but I said no, as I wanted the acquittal.
Because the detective did not request jail time in the event of a conviction, I didn't qualify for court appointed counsel at trial, so I was obliged to defend myself. When I had phoned the Legal Aid number shortly after being charged, they told me "We're not taking any new cases right now".
As for the detective who charged me, I overheard him say at the court house that he had booked a vacation day for the trial date, so he effectively received eight hours pay at 2.5 times his hourly wage for showing up at court, (the paid day off, plus time and a half).
torontosun.com
www.bbc.com
www.tsn.ca
x.com
