Officer fired for handling inmate too roughly in altercation and then filing misleading incident report
An Ontario correctional services officer’s use of excessive force and attempt to colour an incident to justify it is grounds for dismissal, the Ontario Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board has ruled.
Jamie Lavallee was a correctional officer at the Windsor, Ont., Jail, hired in February 2002. His training included information on a federal regulation and a corrections policy manual that both stipulated officers should only use force against an inmate if required, as well as techniques to resolve situations peacefully.
On May 17, 2008, Lavallee was assigned to escort an inmate from the visiting room to his unit. The inmate was a dangerous offender who had assaulted corrections officers on other occasions and had also threatened staff. Because of this, Lavallee was extra alert and vigilant for this assignment.
The inmate and another inmate were banging on the door to the visiting room to be let out, so Lavallee had the door opened. The inmate left the room but the other stayed inside. According to Lavallee, the inmate was close to him and told him to let the other stay, using profanity. Lavallee cautioned him to watch his language and claimed the inmate was “rocking back and forth.” Lavallee said he directed the inmate to move back with his hand and brushed the inmate’s chest, at which point the inmate insulted him.
According to Lavallee, the inmate’s demeanour became serious and, with his knowledge of the inmate’s past altercations, he thought the inmate was about to attack him. He ordered the inmate up against the wall and when the inmate disobeyed, Lavallee claimed he felt cornered and tried an “open back hand distraction” to the inmate’s face. The inmate then took a swing at Lavalee, the officer reported, and threatened him again. Lavallee pressed an emergency alarm button to call for assistance.
The inmate moved into the hall and walked away from Lavallee. Lavallee couldn’t risk letting him where he could get access to other areas of the jail so he tried to grab him. However, he couldn’t grab hold and he claimed the inmate took a swing at him.
Other corrections officers entered the hallway and grabbed the inmate as Lavallee fell backwards. Lavallee got up and tried to assist, but the inmate struggled and ignored several orders to stop resisting so he could be handcuffed. Lavallee decided to deliver a “distractive strike” to the inmate’s head with his open hand in order to create an opportunity to gain control. The officers were able to handcuff the inmate and take him to a segregation cell. Later that day, Lavallee went to the police to file charges against the inmate, then the hospital for x-rays of his finger, though no notable injuries were detected.
All the officers were asked to prepare an occurrence report and the operational managers viewed security video of the incident. The managers felt the video showed Lavallee was the instigator and the inmate did not appear to be physically threatening. They also felt in both instances that Lavallee used a distractive strike it was unnecessary and he had control of the situation, especially the second time when the inmate was already being restrained by other officers. If he felt cornered initially, he should have called for help on his radio or hit the alarm sooner, the managers said. Distractive strikes were only to be used when there was immediate danger to an officer.
The superintendent felt Lavallee had not been truthful and forthcoming in his report and he had deliberately attempted to mislead the ministry. Lavallee was suspended without pay for five days.
The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Affairs launched an investigation into the incident and, based on the video evidence and other accounts, the investigator concluded Lavallee used “techniques that are not consistent with ministry policy, procedures and training” and were “offensive in nature.” Lavallee’s account played up the threat from the inmate and downplayed his own actions, such as calling what looked like a push on the video a light redirection and the initial distractive blow a light check.
The superintendent decided to terminate Lavallee’s employment on Dec. 1, 2008, for not following policy in an altercation with an inmate and not being up front about his actions. He also considered that Lavallee had been suspended or reprimanded on five other occasions, including once for using inappropriate force on inmates.
The board found the jail’s management was correct in its interpretation of the video footage. It made clear that Lavallee’s account was not consistent with what actually happened and this showed he was likely aware he breached policy and the regulation. His trips to the police and hospital were attempts to strengthen his version, said the board.
The board dismissed Lavallee’s claim he was singled out from other officers who also filed inaccurate reports of the incident, finding others omitted things that could easily be seen on the video, while his was “a deliberate and self-serving attempt to hide or minimize his objectionable behaviour.”
