Duty To Prepare Police Case Study

Part A: Duty to Prepare Police Notes
1) The opposing parties appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada are; Ruth Schaeffer, Evelyn Minty, Diane Pinder, and Ian Scot. In this situation, Ruth Schaeffer happens to be the biological mother of Mr. Schaeffer. Diane Pinder is the sister of the now deceased Minty and Evelyn Minty is the biological mother of one of the slain males. (Doug Minty). What both families have in common is a male member from both sides was shot and killed by police and the officers involved consulted lawyers before writing producing notes detailing what had transpired. Minty was a developmentally delayed male and Schaeffer was a schizophrenic. The Director of Special Investigations in this tragic situation, Ian Scott, received
Sadly, the appeal from the grief-stricken families was dismissed. At that point, the families decided to approach the Ontario Court of Appeal and an appeal was permitted. The appeal claimed that the officers should have written their notes in a timely manner, whilst being as candid and precise as possible, without consulting legal representation during the investigation that followed the shooting of Minty and Shaeffer. The officers involved neglected or failed to take the aforementioned measures, which compromised the integrity and validity of their personal accounts and the information related to the shootings. The Supreme Court of Canada supported the claim made by the families. Officers should not consult legal representation in regards to the completion of their notes, especially after a shooting which killed two civilians. In the Minty case, Douglas was developmentally delayed and the mother and relatives of Minty believed that discretion and alternative use of force options should have been
Officers are also human beings and as a human being, ensuring your own safety and survival is arguably the most powerful biological imperative besides that of procreation. Therefore, it is understandable for police officers who were involved in a traumatic event to seek assistance in rationalizing and articulating what occurred. Unfortunately, doing so can and has been interpreted as nefarious and trifling, as if the officer seeking advice after a shooting for example, has something to hide and is attempting to do so. Protecting oneself from liability is what Special Investigations Units assume the officer is trying to do, when he/she seeks legal advice before submitting completed notes or being subjected to questioning. Officers should be as honest and forthright as possible during the completion of their notes (which should be written shortly after the event in question) and cooperate with investigators, because they are seeking to protect the officer, appease those harmed and unearth the complete and unadulterated truth.
(c) No, the duties for subject and witness officers with respect to note-taking and consulting with lawyers do not differ. Both subject and witness officers were at the scene of the event in question and as a result, both parties are going to have similar notes or accounts