The Independent Police Conduct Authority has partially cleared a Whakatane officer in relation to a complaint of using excessive force.
The IPCA found the officer's use of force on the complainant was justified while initially detaining him, but was ‘unnecessary and unjustified' when moving him into a holding cell.
The complainant, referred to as ‘Mr X' in the IPCA report, made a complaint to the authority on May 21, 2016.
He stated police threatened him with violence, smashed his driver's window for no reason, and dragged him into the Whakatane police station using a handcuff.
Mr X also complained police did not return his friend's property, which was taken following the arrest.
The complaint stemmed from an incident on the evening of Friday, May 13, 2016, in which Mr X was noncompliant with police following a random vehicle stop.
‘Officer A' activated his police lights to indicate Mr X should pull over.
However, Mr X only stopped his vehicle in the middle of his lane.
The officer waited for Mr X to move his vehicle to the side. When he failed to do so, the officer got out of his vehicle and approached the driver's window.
He asked Mr X to pull over, and to give his name and driver's licence. When Mr X refused to comply, Officer A called for backup.
He asked Mr X to get out of the vehicle, and threatened to smash the driver's window and arrest him if he did not. When Mr X refused to comply, the officer smashed the window. Mr X then put his vehicle into gear, activated his hazard lights, and drove off.
A police pursuit ensued, in which spikes were deployed. It eventually ended outside the Whakatane police station, where Mr X left his vehicle and laid down on the ground.
Mr X was arrested and handcuffed. Due to his resistance, some force was deemed necessary to bring him into the police station.
However, the force used to move Mr X into the holding cell once inside was deemed ‘unnecessary and unjustified', as it involved Officer A dragging Mr X by the handcuff (which was only on one wrist).
This was the only aspect of Mr X's complaint the IPCA found to have validity.
Due to insufficient information, the authority was unable to determine what happened to two cell phones belonging to MR X's friend, which went missing during the arrest.
4 comments
Great spin
Posted on 20-06-2017 16:15 | By Chris
Nice spin, "partially cleared". You could have said "IPCA finds officer used excessive force", but clearing him from one single element of the investigation allows your pro-police spin I guess.
Yet another idiot nutter to deal with.
Posted on 20-06-2017 17:00 | By Papamoaner
When police don't do enough, chorus of criticism. When police do too much, chorus of criticism. When police do nothing, chorus of criticism. When police do something right, wall of silence. Is it any wonder they sometimes lose their rag? To add insult to injury - paid peanuts. Same with nurses. And no, I'm neither a cop or a nurse. Just a fair-minded citizen.
@ Chris
Posted on 20-06-2017 22:25 | By astex
I can only assume from your post that you have never witnessed some of the scum that police have to deal with. If this person had a) Stoppoed when requested and b) complied with instructions he would not have been in that situation. I suggest that you arrange to go with police one day and see for yourself what they have to deal with. And NO I am not a policeman or have any close connection with any.
Agree Papamoaner & Astex
Posted on 21-06-2017 10:20 | By Border Patrol
The police have to deal with people who have no respect for them or the law. The media also have a part to play in how police are perceived, I notice in a lot of articles even in mainstream papers etc, the police are referred to as 'cops rather than police. Not particularly respectful.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.