NEWS RELEASE
TIMMINS POLICE SERVICE
*************************
On July 7, 2014, a Police Services Act hearing was held involving S/Sgt David Starcevic.
S/Sgt Starcevic faced two counts of neglect of duty for incidents involving improper storage of his firearm and improper note taking.
Hearing officer Deputy Chief Terence Kelly (Ret.) heard the matter and his written decision has been received by the Timmins Police Service.
In his decision, Deputy Chief Kelly has directed that S/Sgt Starcevic be demoted from Staff Sergeant to Sergeant for a period of three months and upon completion of the three month term, will be reinstated to Staff Sergeant at the same pay level prior to his demotion.
DEPUTY CHIEF TERENCE KELLLY (RET:) Before dealing with Sentence in this matter, I wish to thank Mr. David Butt, defence counsel, and Mr. Joel M. Dubois, the Service prosecutor, for their able arguments and exhibits tendered, all of which have assisted me in reaching my decision.
Staff Sergeant Dave Starcevic, Badge Number #97, has pleaded guilty and been found guilty, of two counts of Neglect of Duty, laid under the Police Services Act.
The entry of the guilty plea was advanced with an Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit Number #4).
On May 1st, 3013, S/Sgt. Starcevic was suspended from duty as a result of the commencement of a criminal investigation.
Count One –Neglect of Duty
Immediately following the suspension of S/Sgt Starcevic on May 1st, 2013, Inspector McGinn requested that S/Sgt Starcevic’s firearm be located.
At that time Inspector McGinn and Sergeant Delich first attended S/Sgt Starcevic’s gun locker, which was identified as locker number 91. The locker was opened and the weapon could not be located.
Inspector McGinn and Sgt Delich then attended S/Sgt Starcevic’s personal locker, which was identified as locker number 55. Again, the locker was opened and the weapon could not be located.
Inspector McGinn then requested that the station administrative officer, Constable Buczkoski, assist in locating S/Sgt Starcevic’s firearm. Cst Buczkoski is assigned to administrative duties at the TPS headquarters, and maintains a key press for all locks within the building.
Constable Buczkoski and Inspector McGinn attended the S/Sgt’s office, opened S/Sgt Starcevic’s filing cabinet and found the firearm holstered in his duty belt in the drawer. The weapon was loaded and S/Sgt. Starcevic’s other use of force equipment was also contained in the duty belt.
In his compelled interview, conducted on August 14th, 2013, S/Sgt Starcevic admitted to having left his loaded weapon in his filing cabinet rather than in his gun locker, and indicated that he would be coming in for a night shift the following night. He explained: I just thought it was easier for me to get it the next night out of my filing cabinet. Really, it, like I said, it was a dumb decision on my, my part. I shouldn’t have done that. I should’ve stored it properly, and I didn’t”.
S/Sgt Starcevic also indicated during his compelled interview. While typical practice with respect to the storage of the firearms is to unload the gun, put the gun in the gun vault and bring up the empty gun belt, this would not have been the first time that he has left his weapon in his filing cabinet.
All members of the TPS are required to comply with Operating Procedure #6.09 pertaining to the Safe Storage of Police Service Firearms. Operating procedure 6.09.6.1 states as follows: “Except as may be authorized by this operating procedure, members while off duty shall store their service firearm within their assigned weapons storage locker located within the Timmins Police Service building”.
At the time S/Sgt Starcevic’s firearm was located in his filing cabinet, he was not subject to one of the exceptions referred to in the operating procedure.
Count Two-Neglect of Duty
On May 3rd, 2013, Chief John Gauthier obtained S/Sgt. Starcevic’s notebook SS653 and discovered that the notebook contained numerous omissions and contraventions of TPS policy.
Chief Gauthier requested that Inspector McGinn conduct a full examination of the notebook’s contents. A review of S/Sgt. Starcevic’s notebook revealed the following.
A review of TPS rosters for 2013 revealed that S/Sgt. Starcevic reported for duty a total of 13 times without making a notebook entry.
In addition, S/Sgt. Starcevic failed to record information relevant to his duties such as information disseminated, contact with members of the public and routine required information at the start of his shift.
In his compelled interview, conducted on August 14th, 2013, S/Sgt Starcevic admitted to having gaps in his notebook and explained that he had intended to go back at a later date to fill in the gaps in his notes with the appropriate entries.
S/Sgt Starcevic also indicated during this interview that this level of incompleteness in his notebooks was out of character for him and that his previous notebooks would not have contained these types of omissions.
A subsequent review was then conducted of the contents of notebook SS522, the notebook used by S/Sgt. Starcevic for the 14-month period prior to notebook SS653. This review revealed the following:
A review of TPS rosters for 2012-2013 revealed that S/Sgt Starcevic reported for duty a total of 67 times over the period without making a notebook entry.
During this compelled interview, S/Sgt Starcevic advised investigators that as a Staff Sergeant, he is responsible to review notebooks of his subordinate officers on a regular basis. When he does so, he is checking for “the stuff that’s not in my notebook – consistency, not skipping pages, having proper notes, just what the policy indicates and obviously that notebook – time frame did not follow policy”.
Operating procedures 2.22.7.1 to 2.22.9.2 state that officers are required to utilize every line in their notebooks, separate days through the use of a double line, make entries for each calendar day including days not worked, and include routine information at the commencement of each shift including details such as date, start time, off-duty time, name of Officer-in-Charge, assigned partner, zone and duty assignments. Further, TPS officers are required to record any information received or disseminated, which relates to police investigation as well as contact with members of the public such as traffic stops or suspicious persons. Officers are required to make such entries as soon as practicable after the event and shall complete all notes pertaining to their shift prior to reporting off-duty.
S/Sgt. Starcevic failed to comply with TPS Operating Procedure #2.22-Officer Note Taking, including operating procedures 2.22.7.1 – 2.22.9.2.
Due to the nature of the alleged misconduct, notwithstanding S/Sergeant Starcevic’s guilty plea I believe that the nature of the allegations when taken in the broader context of police/community relations, as well as the context of employee/employer relations, indicates that it is prudent to provide written reasons for my findings.
The disciplinary system of any organization is designed to ensure compliance with the rules and regulations that represent the minimum requirements of good standing. How effectively and fairly the disciplinary system does its job is one measure of organizational integrity.
These obligations can only be discharged by the strictest attention to duty, a high standard of conduct and the subordination of personal considerations to the interest of the service and the community on the part of all ranks. In a service such as policing it is essential that a high standard of discipline should be maintained, and those irregularities of conduct that would not be noticed in other employments should be the subject of disciplinary treatment.
Otherwise the police would be unable to retain the public confidence, and the proper performance of their duties would become impossible.
The duties the police have to perform are varied and exacting; they are increasing and will probably still increase in variety and complexity, and a person cannot make a good police officer unless their general intelligence, memory and powers of observation are distinctly above average.
The gun is the ultimate symbol of the authority of a police officer. It is the police officer that bears the burden of privilege and the onerous responsibility of carrying and safe storage of this instrument while off duty.
The public must be confidant that police officers will strive to set an example for those in the community. Anything short of this will be seen as a contradiction and serve no other purpose but to undermine the efforts of all police officers and the explicit goals of the service. This was a clear misuse of power invested in him, and in direct contravention of the rules respecting the handling of firearms, the necessity to uphold the image of the police service and indeed common sense.
With respect to Charge Number #2, S/Sergeant Starcevic’s notes were willfully neglectful and fell well below the performance standard expected from a police officer of any level of experience, notwithstanding a senior officer of this police service.
The police officer is the person most responsible for initially setting the wheels of justice in motion. Therefore, the public cannot be expected to respect the law if it does not respect and believe in the dedication and integrity of the police service and its members.
The conduct of Staff/Sergeant Starcevic in these matters is completely at variance with the high standards expected of member’s of the Timmins Police Service, particularly of supervisors and senior officers. Informed police officers possess a sense of responsibility to the Service of which he or she is a part, and the community, which they serve. It is unfortunate that when dealing with these situations Staff/Sergeant Starcevic would not have permitted himself to be guided by his better judgment and responsibility.
This case disturbed me in that the officer involved is a S/Sergeant, a senior member of this Police Service, and someone who should be setting a good example for his subordinates, rather than being the focus of Police Service Act charges. His behaviour was woefully far short of the conduct expected of a serving officer, more so an officer with his length of seniority.
Mistakes and willful acts of disobedience are quite different.
Mistakes are generally tolerable because they are correctable, but an officer’s willful disregard of the Rules and regulations, the oath of Office and the Core values of the Service will bring serious sanctions.
It has always been the position of this trier of fact that when police officers fall afoul of the Police Services Act, he or she is entitled to fall back on their record of Service. S/Sgt. Starcevic’s career profile (Exhibit Number#9); indicate a continuum of complimentary reports. I also note (Exhibit Number #6); the recent conviction against S/Sgt. Starcevic on July 30th, 2012 on five counts of Discreditable Conduct.
The seriousness of the offence is, of course, the primary consideration. However, the Tribunal is mindful of the general guidelines and considerations for sentencing. Each case must be judged upon evidence heard, exhibits presented for consideration, the history of the officer and upon any other relevant and specific circumstance upon which a finding can be made
To reflect the seriousness of these offences, and as a general and specific deterrent, it is the decision of the Tribunal that Staff Sergeant Starcevic, Badge Number #97 will be DEMOTED FROM STAFF SERGEANT TO SERGEANT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE THREE MONTH TERM WILL BE REINSTATED TO STAFF SERGEANT AT THE SAME PAY LEVEL PRIOR TO HIS DEMOTION.
*************************
